Case: Mahavir and Ors Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors

6. The High Court while dismissing the writ petition by the impugned order had observed:4) The question is perhaps a unique one - i.e. the parties claim to be aggrieved to approach this Court, waking up like Rip Van Winkle in Indian parlance or what may be called a Kumbkarna lapse of time. In other words, is it open to the Petitioner or a set of Petitioners to resuscitate grievance several generations later to claim the protection of a later law? Such claims were never under contemplation when the acquisition was resorted to.5) It is not disputed that the lands over which the Petitioner lays claim were a part of Raisina village which was acquired and on which much of Lutyens Delhi has been built. In these circumstances as to whether indeed the Petitioners ancestors were paid compensation or not can be made a subject of inquiry over 104 years later having regard to a later enactment and right which flow directly from it. In the opinion of the Court, the award clearly has to be negative. The Petitioners are asking this Court to infer and conclude that in the absence of some indication from the records made available by them that their ancestors did not ever receive any compensation. No contemporary record in the form of letters, protest by them or any other communication stating that compensation was not disbursed or reference to civil proceedings for the release of the amounts or seeking decree have been relied upon by the Petitioners. In these circumstances, if the Petitioners are to be allowed to raise such grievances the courts would be open to claims from each succeeding generation, which may say that the previous generation had not received their just dues. Such claims cannot be adjudicated, as they are barred.7. The Petitioners in the petition have referred to the decision of this Court in Delhi Development Authority v. Sukhbir Singh 2016 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 407 : 2016(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 369 : (2016) 16 SCC 258.   In the aforesaid case, possession was taken over in 2000 and the compensation was deposited by the DDA with the Land Acquisition Collector in the year 2002. There was a dispute as to who will receive compensation, therefore, compensation could neither be paid nor tendered. In said case, reliance was placed upon the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, 2014 (1) R.C.R. (Civil) 880 : 2014 (1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 542 : (2014) 3 SCC 183.   This Court held that the deposit in court was not made as per Sections 31(2) of the Act. Hence proceedings lapsed by virtue of Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

Court's reasoning:
8. Section 31(1) of the Act requires tender of compensation which is tendered in terms of Section 12 of the Act. Section 12 provides a mode of informing claimants as to compensation. Section 31(2) of the Act requires Collector to deposit amount in court in case it is not received by the persons interested or there is some dispute. Under the Act, the deposit is required only with a view to avoiding liability to pay interest. Deposit in the Court is not a payment made to the owner. It is only to avoid liability to pay interest that too at higher rates on the failure of deposit. Once it is deposited the liability to pay interest ceases. Section 34 of the Act makes it clear that if the compensation is not deposited on or before taking the possession of the land, interest at the rate of nine per cent shall follow from the time of so taking the possession until compensation so paid or deposited in the court. The proviso to Section 34 makes it clear that in case it is not so deposited in court as per Section 31(1) within a period of one year from the date of taking possession interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum shall be payable. Thus, it is clearly provided Under Section 34 that interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum shall be payable from the date of expiry of the said period of one year till it is so paid or deposited. As soon as the deposit is made Under Section 31(2) of the Act, liability ceases to make the payment of interest on the compensation amount so deposited.11. In the instant case, no relief can be granted on the basis of decision of the Sukhbir Singh (supra) in which decision of this Court in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) has been relied on or any other decision following Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) referred to in the decision of this Court in Sukhbir Singh (supra).12. In the instant case, the case is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. By no stretch of the imagination, the principles enumerated in Section 24 of the Act of 2013 can be permitted to invoke. We are not inclined to entertain such a stale claim after 105 years of acquisition.13. The catena of decisions of this Court indicates that delay and laches are enough to destroy the remedy as laid down by this Court in Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Chennai v. M. Meiyappan and Ors. 2011 (1) R.C.R.(Civil) 12 : (2010) 14 SCC 309     and Jasveer Singh and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2017 (3) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 191 : (2017) 6 SCC 787.  14. In U.P. State Jal Nigam and Anr. v. Jaswant Singh and Anr. 2007 (1) S.C.T. 224 : (2006) 11 SCC 464     this Court has observed that in determining whether there has been delay so as to amount to laches in case Petitioner/claimant is aware of the violation of the right, where a remedy by his conduct tantamount to waiver of it or where, by his conduct or neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.18. The court is duty bound to prevent the abuse of the process of law in the cases which have been concluded several decades before, in our considered opinion, the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases of dead claims or stale claims. There are several numbers of cases coming to this Court in which matters had been contested up to this Court questioning the acquisition and the petitions have been dismissed by this Court, and acquisition has attained finality, possession was taken, the award passed. Notice had been issued Under Section 12(2) of the Act tendering the awarded amount but it has not been collected by the claimants/land owners deliberately or they had refused to collect it and are not ready and willing to accept it and, thereafter, it has been deposited in the name and account of the owners in the treasury which is also deposited as per the State Governments instructions issued time to time relating to how Government money is to be dealt with. The act of failure to deposit money Under Section 31 after possession is taken only imposes liability to pay higher interest Under Section 34. The acquisition would not lapse under the Act.19. In our opinion, the cases in which there is deliberate action of the owners for not collecting the compensation and they do not want to receive it, Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act does not come to their rescue as provisions are to help those persons who are deprived of compensation but not for those who deliberately had not received it and litigated for decades for quashing of proceedings avoiding to receive compensation by willful act. The failure to deposit in court Under Section 31(1) in such cases would attract only interest as envisaged Under Section 34 of the Act and the provisions of Section 24 cannot be so invoked in such cases.20. In the instant case, the claim has been made not only belatedly, but neither the Petitioners nor their previous three generations had ever approached any of the authorities in writing for claiming compensation. No representation had ever been filed with any authority, none has been annexed and there is no averment made in the petition that any such representation had ever been filed. The claim appears not only stale and dead but extremely clouded. This we are mentioning as additional reasons, as such claims not only suffer from delay and laches but courts are not supposed to entertain such claims. Besides such claims become doubtful, cannot be received for consideration being barred due to delay and laches.21. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be permitted to be raised in the court, and cannot be adjudicated as they are barred. The High Court has rightly observed that such claims cannot be a subject matter of inquiry after the lapse of a reasonable period of time and beneficial provisions of Section 24 of the 2013 Act are not available to such incumbents. In our opinion, Section 24 cannot revive those claims that are dead and stale.22. The High Court has observed that Raisina is a part of the Lutyens zone of Delhi. It is prime of New Delhi and Government offices etc. are located.ow the Petitioners came to know that their ancestors had not received compensation has not been disclosed in the petition. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain such claims. The protective umbrella of Section 24 is not available to barred claims. If such claims are entertained Under Section 24, it would be very-very difficult to distinguish with the frivolous claim that may be made even after tampering the records etc. or due to non-availability of such record after so much lapse of time. Once right had been lost due to delay and laches or otherwise, it cannot be revived under provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The intendment of Act 2013 is not to revive stale and dead claims and in the concluded case when rights have been finally lost. If there is delay and laches or claim is otherwise barred, it is not revived Under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The provision does not operate to revive legally barred claims.The provision of Section 24 does not invalidate courts judgments/orders in which right have been finally lost or due to inaction is barred. Law does not permit examination of barred or totally fraudulent claims. The provisions of the law cannot be permitted to be defrauded or misused. Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act cannot be invoked in such cases. The High Court has rightly declined to entertain the writ petitions filed by the Petitioners. It is not conceivable how the Petitioners could file such a petition in a laconic manner relating to the prime locality at New Delhi that too for hundreds of acres with the delay of more than 100 years.23. The prayers that have been made in writ petition are not only misconceived, there is an attempt to stop the ongoing construction activity. It has also been mentioned that Government offices etc. have come up and the Government has leased property to private parties also but still, the prayer has been made to stop the construction activity. It passes comprehension how such relief could ever be asked for. No authority had ever been approached by the Petitioners or by their ancestors. As such the petition is aimed at the total misuse of the process of law. Even for a moment, such a petition could not have been received for consideration.24. We have seen in a large number of cases that the acquisition had attained finality, compensation had been tendered but not received and development had also taken place. Petitions are being filed in the courts under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act that they have not been paid any compensation. In fact, if there is any such grievance, they themselves are responsible for not collecting the compensation that was offered and tendered to them. The provision of Section 24 is not intended to apply and extend help in such cases. We are not at all inclined to entertain the instant petition.