LexMAHAVIR & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] l l S.C.R. 553 MAHAVIR & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 26281 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 08, 2017 [ARUN MISHRA AND MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, JJ.) Delay!Laches: A B Writ petition u/Art. 226 of Constitution - Taking plea that the C compensation for the 100 acres .land acquired in Raisina Lutyen :v zone of New Delhi which had taken place in 1911-12, had not been paid and therefore, in view of s.24 of Right to Fair Compensation Act of 2013, the land acquisition proceedings had lapsed - Petitioners also prayed for restraint on construction activity <ind 0 from creation of third party interest - High Court dismissed .the petition - On Special Leave Petition, held: The case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and /aches - A stale claim aft~r 105 years of acquisition cannot be entertained - The provisions of s.24(2) of 2013 Act cannot be invoked in cases of dead claims or stale claims - The claims are also clouded and hence become E doubtful - Law does not permit examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims - Provisions of law cannot be permitted to the defrauded or misused - In the present case law has not on(v been misused but also abused - Therefore, the petition is liable tiJ be dismissed with costs of Rs. 50, 0001- - Right to Fair Cof1!pensation and Transparency in Lal1d Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 - s.24 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894. F Rabindranath Bose & Ors. V; Union of India & Ors. (1970) 1 SCC 84 : [1970] 2 SCR 697 - followed. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M Meiyappan G & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 309 : [2010] 12 SCR 1184; Jasveer Singh & Am: v. State of Uttar Pradesh .& Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 787; U.P State Jal Nigam & Am: v. Jaswant Singh & A111: (2006) 11 SCC 464 : [2006) 8 Suppl. SCR 916; Dharappa v. Bijapur Co-operative H 553 554 A B c D E F SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 11 S.C.R. Milk Prodr1cers Societies Union Ltd. (2007) 9 SCC 109 : [2007) 5 SCR 729; State of Karnataka v. Laxuman (2005) 8 sec 709 : [2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 535; Addi. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore v. Thakoredt.is. Major and Ors. (1997) 11 SCC 412 - relied on. Delhi Dev(!lopment Authority v. Sukhbir Singh (2016) 16 SCC 258 : [2016) 5 SCR 227; Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirima/ Solanki (2014) 3 SCC 18~ : [2014) 1 SCR 783; Hissar improvement Trust v. Sm/. Rukmani Devi and Am: AIR 1990 SC 2033; Shri Kishan Das & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. AIR 1996 SC il74 : (1995) 3 Suppl. SCR 584 - held inapplicable. Case Law Reference (2016) 5 SCR 2l7 held inapplicable Para8 [2014) l SCR 7ll3 held inapplicable Paras AIR 1990 SC 2033 held inapplicable Para 10 [1995) 3 Suppl. $CR 584 held inapplicable Para 11 (2010) 12 SCR 11184 relied on Para 14 c2011) 6 sec 7817 relied on Para 14 [2006) 8 Suppl. SCR 916 relied on Para 15 [1970] 2 SCR 6917 followed Para 16 [2007] 5 SCR 729 relied on Para 17 [2005) 4 Suppl. SCR 535 relied on Para 18 (1997) 11 sec 412 relied on Para 18 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition G (Civil)No.26281 of2017 H From the Jud~ent and Order dated I 0.04.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 129 of2017. Dr. Surat Sin!Pi, Brajesh Kumar Singh, Amit P. Shaunak, Saurabh Agarwal, Ad vs. for the Petitioners. MAHAVIR & ORS. v. UNJON OF INDIA & ANR. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER l. Delay condoned. 2. There is a gross abuse of the process of law reflected in the instant case. In Raisena, Lutyen's zone of New Delhi the acquisition took place and awards were passed thereto in 1911-1912. A writ petition was filed by the petitioners before the High Court after I 05 years later, urging that compensation has not been paid; due to operation· of the provisions of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, 2013 (for short, "the 2013 Act"), the land acquisition has lapsed. 3. In the writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court they claimed to be the fourth Generation ofNathu son ofKaalu. It was averred that Government passed the award Nos.55 and 56 in the year 1911-1912. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners were cultivators in the capacity of Gair Morusi tenants. As per the prevalent policy, at the relevant time, cultivators and tenants were entitled to 50 per cent of the compensation. About 1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.