Axiomatic Delay Disentitles Party To Discretionary Relief U/A 226: Delhi High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Acquisition Proceedings After "62 Yrs"

The Delhi High Court has observed that the axiomatic delay in approaching the court disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

While dismissing a plea filed after an inordinate delay of 62 years in a land acquisition matter, a division bench comprising of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth further added that the Petitioners had accepted the enhanced compensation without reserving any right whatsoever and the law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time.

"Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, now after an inordinate delay of about 62 years after the acquisition, the Petitioners cannot challenge the said acquisition proceedings," it said.

The petitioners had challenged and sought quashing of the Notifications dated November 13, 1959 and August 18, 1960 issued by the Delhi Administration under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with regards to acquisition of a property situated in the estate of Village Kalu Sarai, Delhi.

It was submitted by the petitioners that the evacuee property was allotted a person pursuant to him being declared as the highest bidder and despite sale certificate being issued to him, the possession of the evacuee property was never given to him.

It was argued that when Notifications under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act were issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, possession was taken by the Government. It was further argued that the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners never took provisional possession of the evacuee property and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, no encumbrance was created on the evacuee property prior to the date of issuance of the impugned Notifications.

It was the submission of the Petitioners that since no encumbrance was created on the evacuee property prior to the date of acquisition, the evacuee property belonged to the Central Government and thus could not have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

It was argued that every citizen has a right to property and by virtue of the law as evolved as on date, if it was evident that the land acquisition in itself is illegal on the date of issuance of the impugned Notifications, High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in order to ensure justice to the parties.

It added "The Court cannot permit the Petitioners to alter a settled position after almost six decades, when the Petitioners have remained silent for decades and have accepted the enhanced compensation awarded to them. It is a settled position of law that delay and laches is one of the factors which is to be borne in mind by the High Court while exercising their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution."

The Court thus dismissed the plea after not being convinced with the explanation rendered on behalf of the Petitioners for the substantial and inordinate delay in approaching High Court.

Case Title: SH. NARDEV SONI AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 612

Click Here To Read Order