New Delhi [India], July 5 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a plea after noting that it was filed after a delay of 62 years. The petitioner through a plea filed in 2022 had challenged and sought quashing of notifications of November 13, 1959, and August 18, 1960, issued by the Delhi Administration under Land Acquisition Act 1894 with regard to the acquisition of property measuring 10 Bighas and 16 Biswas in the estate of Village Kalu Sarai, Delhi.
A Division Bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Gaurang Kanth dismissed the petition moved by Nardev Soni and others on the ground of a delay of 62 years.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Gaurang Kanth observed, “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. The law does not permit a person to approbate and reprobate at the same time.”
The Bench further observed, “Inordinate deadly in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, now after an inordinate delay of about 62 years after the acquisition, the petitioners cannot challenge the said acquisition proceedings.”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, counsel for petitioners Nardev Soni and others had argued that the evacuee property was allotted to Late Dewan Kesho Dass Soni pursuant to being declared as the highest bidder and despite the sale certificate being issued to him, the possession of the evacuee property was never given to him. Later on the possession was taken over by the Government.
On the other hand, the petition was opposed by the LAC in the ground of delay and laches. It was contended that the order challenged here were issued in 1959 and 1960. The compensation was paid and settled almost 20 years back.
The Bench noted that the provisional possession of evacuee property was offered on January 14, 1959, apparently, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners never took possession of the evacuee property. (ANI)
