The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sh. Nardev Soni & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors. consisting of Justices Gaurang Kanth and Siddharth Mridul dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the Notifications issued by the Delhi Administration (Respondent No. 2 herein) u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 regarding the acquisition of a property (‘evacuee property’) while observing that the petitioner should act diligently and approach the writ court in good time.
Facts
The evacuee property was acquired u/s 12 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (‘the Act’) and vested with the Central Government. A public auction was held in 1959 in respect of the evacuee property and Late Dewan Kesho Dass Soni (predecessor in interest of the Petitioner Nos. 1 & 2) a displaced person under the Act, emerged as the highest bidder. He executed an Indemnity Bond in favour of the President of India for an amount of Rs. 9,110/- (towards 10% of the purchase price of the said evacuee property as required by the auctioneers). He was informed about acceptance of his bid with a direction to deposit the balance purchase price or to take steps regarding its adjustment. Being a displaced person, he opted for adjustment. He also informed that he would like to associate with his friend (Late Radha Kishan Nagpal) who had a verified claim and the said amount can also be adjusted towards the balance purchase price. After adjustment, Sale Certificate was issued in their favour but the provisional possession of the evacuee property was never taken over by them. In the meanwhile, Respondent No. 2 issued impugned Notifications in 1959 and 1960 u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the evacuee property at public expense for a public purpose. A Sale Certificate was issued to them declaring them the purchasers of the evacuee property in relation to their respective share. The physical possession of the evacuee property was taken by the Respondent No. 2 in 1961.
Procedural History
The Land Acquisition Collector in 1961-1962 fixed the price of the land at Rs. 4000/- per Bigha. In 1962 Late Dewan Kesho Dass Soni and Late Radha Kishan Nagpal preferred applications u/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground that property had been greatly undervalued and the compensation awarded to the predecessors was enhanced in interest of the Petitioners to Rs.12,000/- per Bigha. In 1967, three Regular First Appeals came to be filed and the compensation was further increased to Rs.17,000/- per Bigha, with 15% Solatium and 6% interest from the date of possession till the date of actual payment. In 1990, three execution petitions were filed for the execution of the Order for recovery of the enhanced compensation. During the pendency of these proceedings, Dewan Kesho Dass Soni and Mr. Radha Kishan Nagpal expired, and their legal heirs (present Petitioners) were impleaded as party to those proceedings. The enhanced amount of compensation was accepted by the Petitioners. There was no further challenge and hence the land acquisition proceedings regarding the evacuee property and the litigations arising out of the said proceedings came to an end in the year 2003.
In 2013, the Hon’ble Supreme Court settled the question of law vis-à-vis the validity of the acquisition of properties that had been auctioned under the provisions of Displaced Persons Act. The Petitioners came to know about the said Judgement in 2021. Thereafter they sought certain information from the Respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and came to know that the impugned Notifications were bad in law. So, they are challenging the said Notifications in the present proceedings.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: Despite sale certificate being issued, the possession of the evacuee property was never given and later it was taken by the Government. Predecessor in interest of the Petitioners never took provisional possession of the evacuee property, so no encumbrance was created on the evacuee property prior to the date of issuance of the impugned Notifications. The right to property is a constitutional right. The land acquisition is illegal on the date of issuance of the impugned Notifications.
Respondent: The acquisition proceedings were concluded long back and the Petitioners have already reaped the benefits of the said proceedings by virtue of receiving compensation and also enhanced compensation in respect of the evacuee property. So, the present Petition is barred by delay and latches.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the process of impugned land acquisition and the litigations emanating therefrom with respect to the evacuee property culminated about 20 years back.
Relying on M.S Dewan vs UOI & Ors., Pradeep Kumar &Ors vs Union of India & Ors. and Naresh Kumar vs UOI &Ors., it was noted that there is an inordinate delay of almost 62 years in challenging the acquisition proceedings. The Petitioners accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever. Therefore, now after an inordinate delay of about 62 years after the acquisition, the Petitioners cannot challenge the said acquisition proceedings.
Judgment
The Court observed that an axiomatic delay disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, it was not convinced with the explanation rendered on behalf of the Petitioners for such a substantial and inordinate delay in approaching the Court. So, the petition was dismissed.
Case: Sh. Nardev Soni & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
Citation: W.P.(C) 7815/2022
Bench: Justice Gaurang Kanth, Justice Siddharth Mridul
Decided on: 5th July 2022
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments