,'X rqP, Orders IN TIIE HIGH COT]RT OF DELIII AT NEW DEIJII (,'Ii{ 5517t2m3 NARAIN SINGH' ..... Petitianer Through Mr. Deepdc Khosla ..... Respondurt Th*gh Mr. Sanjay Poddarwith Mr. Srhin Nawani CORAM: HONtsLE TIIE CIIIM' JI]STICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.KSIKRI ORDER 9o 01.09.2103 Petitioner has come out wlth the case that though he ma$e an application for reference under Section 18 on z3.tgEt, the reference hFs not been made, It may be noted that xcrrox oopy of unslgned document indicating no proof of receipt is produced on record.. Such application cannot be lmked into considering the 'del;ay. Even in the year 1996, i.e after long delay, application wap i made for fonvarding the reference to the Reference Courl It b h case of, the petitloner's that no actlon was taken, yet they remain$ quiet spd selm. {E UOI snm sHyarvrffi ozo5 Signing Date:05.12.2024 17:09:20 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Orderc accordance wlth law and they gor the beneflt There is no satisfactory materlal on the record. to indtcste that apptication for reference was made by these petitloners. petitioners have come to the Court after Z}yegrrs and the writJurisdicflon cannot be exercised when petitloners are found sleeping over their rights They have woken up onry after decislon of the Reference court in some other cas6. In vlew of the amendment in the Land Acquisiticn Act, l8g4 (rlereinafter referred as the Act), after the decision of the Reference court, lt was open for the petltioner to approach the authorities wlthin the tlme stipulatcd fur Section 28A. But that exercise is not done. Apex court in (1990 6 scc 44s titled as srATE oF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS vS, D.R. LAXIVII AND oTHERs, has refemed therefur theeAdministrative Law'' by H.w,R. . WADE (?fr edition) at page nc. 342-43, thus :- 'The tmth of the matter b that the court wtll tnvalidafie an order only tf the {ett regedy is-sought b-.Y ft€_rig}tt person in the rlgtrt promedings and cjrcumstances. The order may be h5'pothettcalty a nulfity, but the 6*i-"v r*ti to quash ii t*",r"u -of the plaintilfs lack ol standing bee.ause he does not dr^rscrvc a discretr:onrrli rremerly, because he has wairned his r{ghts, or for some other legal rreason I;n any suih case tlrc 'void' order 'rcmairrs effective and ig iu reality, valid. It fono* that an order rnay be "o1o forrsf,f FuE ose aflll "_TL,1T alroth*r; aEtl that t! mry lre "rrtl agatnst firlr. , D.' Orders txltomes valid ls wlrcre a statutoql finre Jimit expircs after whlch its mlidity cannot be qu€stioned- Tlre stahrte does no t say that the void order shall be valtd; but by *tff;; legaliemedies il. produce that reeullr' . We therefore dkmiss this pe.tltlon. SEPTEMBER 01,2003 PC. g.!ry CHI-EFJUSTICE SHR!SHYAM SALES 02.03