SMT. SAVITRI DEVI vs UNION OTF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DISTRICT NORTH ALIPUR DELHI
$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 15.04.2024
+ W.P.(C) 13831/2023
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI ….. Petitioner
Through: Ms.Jyoti Tyagi and Ms.Manisha, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR DISTRICT NORTH ALIPUR DELHI ….. Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Standing Counsel with Mr.Sunil Kumar Jha, Mr.M.S.Akhtra, Advocates with Mr.Narun NT/North in person.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the Land Acquisition Collector (hereafter LAC) to pay the compensation in respect of the agricultural land measuring 2 Bigha, 11 Biswas and 14 Biswansi comprising in Khasra No.31//24 min (0-8-7), 31//25 min (2-3-7) in village Barwala, Delhi (hereafter the subject land).
2. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter the 1894 Act) including the subject land was published on 25.11.2009. This was followed by the publication of the declaration under Section 6 and issuance of a notice Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act on 19.02.2010. Thereafter, on 28.06.2011, an award (Award No.03/10-11) in respect of certain lands including the subject land was made. The petitioner claims that despite the fact that the urgency clause was invoked, the LAC failed to tender 80% of the estimated compensation to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claims that the LAC by the aforesaid award has determined the market value of the acquired land at ?53,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty-Three lacs) per acre, which translates to ? 11,04,166.66/- per bigha.
4. The petitioner further states that she had visited the office of the respondent several times and had also submitted the surety bond, affidavit and indemnity bond on 27.02.2023. Despite the same, the compensation has not been released to her.
5. Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the LAC submits that the counter affidavit has been filed. However, the same is not on record. He has handed over a copy the said counter affidavit in the Court. The same is taken on the record.
6. The counter affidavit does not indicate that any of the material averments made by the petitioner are contested. The principal objection taken by the LAC is on the ground of delay and laches. It is averred that more than thirteen years have been elapsed since the possession of the subject land was taken over and handed to the Delhi Development Authority on 24.02.2010 and the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage.
7. Mr. Pathak, fairly does not press the aforesaid contention.
8. It is trite law that though the Court may be guided by the Limitation Act, 1963, however, the said act does not apply to the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are unable to accept that the delay in the present case is such that the petitioner should be precluded from availing her legal remedies.
9. The petitioner has specifically averred that she had visited the office of the respondent on numerous occasions and has submitted various representations. It is also not denied by the respondent that the petitioner had furnished the surety bond, affidavit, and indemnity bond on 27.02.2023.
10. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors: (2020) 2 SCC 569 wherein, the State has set up the defence of adverse possession in respect of the appellants land which was acquired in the year 1967-68. Additionally, the respondent has also sought to raise the defence of limitation. In the said context, the Supreme Court had observed as under:-
12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case. It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose. There is no period of limitation prescribed for the courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to do substantial justice.
12.13. In a case where the demand for justice is so compelling, a constitutional court would exercise its jurisdiction with a view to promote justice, and not defeat it.
12.4. In Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors. v. MIDC, (2013) 1 SCC 353, this Court while dealing with a similar fact situation, held as follows:
11. There are authorities which state that delay and laches extinguish the right to put forth a claim. Most of these authorities pertain to service jurisprudence, grant of compensation for a wrong done to them decades ago, recovery of statutory dues, claim for educational facilities and other categories of similar cases, etc. Though, it is true that there are a few authorities that lay down that delay and laches debar a citizen from seeking remedy, even if his fundamental right has been violated, under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution, the case at hand deals with a different scenario altogether. The functionaries of the State took over possession of the land belonging to the appellants without any sanction of law. The appellants had asked repeatedly for grant of the benefit of compensation. The State must either comply with the procedure laid down for acquisition, or requisition, or any other permissible statutory mode.
(emphasis supplied)
11. It is not necessary for this Court to deliberate further on this issue since Mr. Pathak has not pressed the question of limitation.
12. A plain reading of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC indicates that the respondent is agreeable to decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from date. The averments made in paragraph No. 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the LAC are relevant and reproduced for reference: –
8. That vast tract of land including the land of comprised in khasra Nos. 31//24 min (3-00) & 31//25 min (4-15) situated in village Barwala, Delhi was notified for acquisition on 25.11.2009 issued under section 4 of the Act which was followed by declaration dated 19.02.2010 under section 6 of the Act and culminated into Award No. 3/2010-11 dated 28.06.2011. The possession of the said land was taken and handed over to the DDA on 25.04.2010. It is submitted that as per record of Naksha Muntzamin and Statement A compensation amount has not been paid in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 31//24 min (0-8-7) and 31//25 min (2-3-7). It is submitted that application of the petitioner for release of compensation will be disposed off within eight weeks subject to scrutiny of the documents.
(emphasis added)
13. The respondent is bound down to the aforesaid statement.
14. Considering the petitioners advance age of 82 years, it is expected that the respondent will give full priority to this case.
15. The petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms with liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh in case a fresh cause of action arises.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
APRIL 15, 2024
M
W.P.(C) 13831/2023 Page 2 of 2