Full Judgment Text
#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 31.05.2022
Judgment delivered on: 06 .07.2022
+ W.P (C) No. 8312 OF 2022
CITICAP HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS LTD ….Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ....Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners : Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Senior Advocate
alongwith Mr. Santosh Kumar Routa, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Rishabh Sahu, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior Advocate alongwith
Ms. Mrinalini Sen for respondent No. 3/ DDA.
Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocate for respondent No. 5/ LAC.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
J U D G E M E N T
GAURANG KANTH, J.
1. The Petitioner has filed the present Petition, inter alia, seeking a direction
against the Respondents to hand over / restore back the vacant and peaceful
possession of the land bearing Khasra No. 965 measuring (0-13) in Village
Bahapur, Tehsil Kalkaji, New Delhi (“land in question”) . In the alternative, the
Petitioner is seeking a direction against the Respondents to acquire the land in
question under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation to the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 1 of 14
or direct the Respondents to allot an alternative plot / residential house in the
same locality of equal size having the same price as that of the land in question.
Facts as stated in the Petition
2. It is the case of the Petitioner that Khasra No. 965 situated in the revenue
estate of Village Bahapur, Tehsil Mehrauli is a piece of land measuring 1 Bigha
7 Biswa. Out of the said Khasra, the Government acquired a land measuring 14
Biswa vide declaration under Section 3 of the Resettlement of Displaced
Persons Land Acquisition Act, 1948 vide notification No.F.1(71)/48 LSG (1)
dated 26.03.1949. The remaining land of 13 Biswa out of Khasra No. 965, i.e.,
the land in question, was not acquired by the Government and the same was in
possession of its respective owners.
3. An agreement to sell dated 11.08.1986 was entered between (i) Sh.
Chandgi Ram s/o Sh.Khes Chand; (ii) Sh. Jit Ram s/o Sh. Ramji Lal; (iii) Sh.
Surender Singh s/o Sh. Zile Singh; (iv) Sh. Mahinder Singh s/o Sh. Zile Singh;
(v) Smt. Kamlesh d/o Sh. Zile Singh; (vi) Smt. Indra d/o Sh. Medh Singh; (vii)
Smt. Gulbir Verma wife of Sh. Manga Ram; (viii) Sh. Rakesh Kumar s/o Sh.
Manga Ram; (ix) Smt. Prem d/o Sh. ManSingh; (x) Sh. Ajit Singh s/o Sh. Medh
Singh; (xi) Smt. Minakshi d/o Sh. Manga Ram; (xii) Sh. Gagan s/o Sh. Manga
Ram; and (xiii) Sh. Jai Bhagwan s/o Sh. Man Singh (“farmers”) as sellers and
M/s Aavishkar Estates Pvt. Ltd as buyer for the sale of the said land in question.
M/s Aavishkar Estates Pvt. Ltd filed a suit for specific performance being Civil
Suit No.36/93 titled as M/s Aavishkar Estates Pvt. Ltd Vs Chandgi Ram &Ors
before this Court. During the pendency of the said Civil Suit, M/s Aavishkar
Estates Pvt. Ltd, with the consent of the farmers and with the permission of this
Court, assigned all its rights, title and interest in the land in question in favour
of the Petitioner. The said Civil Suit was compromised in terms of IA No.
4916/13. In pursuance of the order dated 15.07.1993 passed by this Court in
Civil Suit No. 36/93, the Registrar of this Court executed the sale deed dated
08.11.1993 in favour of the Petitioner. In terms of the said registered sale deed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 2 of 14
dated 08.11.1993, the Petitioner is claiming itself to be the absolute owner of
the land in question. Further, the land in question is mutated in the name of the
Petitioner in the revenue records.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that the land in question was in illegal
possession of the Respondent No.3 (DDA) and hence they approached the
Respondent No. 3 for handing over the possession of the land in question to the
Petitioner. As Respondent No.3 failed to take any action on the said request,
Petitioner approached this Court in W.P(C) 5204/1997. This Court, vide order
dated 01.12.1997, was pleased to direct the parties to maintain status quo with
regard to the land in question. The said Writ Petition was finally disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 07.01.2003, which, inter alia , reads as follows:
“The petitioner was aggrieved by what was stated to be the
contemplated action of the Respondent in respect of Khasra
No.965 in the land of the petitioner measuring 650 sq.yards
located in revenue estate of village Bahapur, Chirag Delhi,
Tehsil Mehrauli.
In the counter affidavit it is stated that no action has been taken
in the Khasra No. 965 but demolition notice was taken in
respect of the land in Khasra No. 976 which adjoins Khasra
No.965. Khasra No. 976 was acquired and placed at the
disposal of respondent DDA. It is also not disputed that
demarcation proceeding are separately going on. The
submission of learned counsel for the respondent based on the
counter affidavit which is already on record shows that the
respondent is only protecting its own land and it is taking no
action against the land of the petitioner.
In view thereof no further orders are called for since there is no
threatened action against the land of the petitioner and the writ
petition stands disposed of.”
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid Writ Petition, the Petitioner applied
for demarcation of the land in question with the SDM (Kalkaji). The
demarcation was carried out on 18.03.2001 in presence of SDM Kalkaji,
Tehsildar (DDA), Tehsildar (Slum and JJ Dept), Patwari (MCD), Kanoongo
(MCD), Area Kanoongo, Area Patwari etc. The said demarcation report
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 3 of 14
concluded that the land in question is the part of a developed colony, however,
the exact location of the land in question could not be identified during the
demarcation proceedings.
6. It has been contended by the Petitioner that they have issued a legal
notice dated 04.06.2010 to the Delhi Jal Board asking them to vacate the land in
question. However, no positive response with regard to the said legal notice was
received by the Petitioner.
7. The Petitioner filed another Writ Petition being W.P(C) No. 536/2011
before this Court. In the said proceedings, Land Acquisition Collector (South)
filed Counter Affidavit, which, inter alia , stated:
“ 4.That the Khasra number in question, i.e., 965, comprising
of the land measuring 1 bigha 7 biswa situated in the revenue
estate of Village Bahapur. Out of the total land, only 14 biswa
of land falling in Khasra No.965 was acquired by the
Government at the public expenses for a public purpose,
namely, for the construction of Kalka Colony for there
settlement of the displaced persons, Land Acquisition Act,
1948.
5. That a declaration under Section 3 of the Resettlement of
the Displaced Persons Land Acquisition Act, 1948 was made
vide notification dated 20.03.1949. An offer was made to the
individuals by the competent offices, who was also the Land
Officer, Delhi Improvement Trust. In most cases, the
individual landowners accepted the offers and had collected
the money from the competent officer. As far as the land
measuring 13 biswa in Khasra No.965, Village Bahapur
(subject matter of the present petition) is concerned the same
is not acquired and as per the available records maintained by
the office of the LAC. ”
8. The W.P(C) No. 536/2011 was finally disposed of vide order dated
18.01.2012, which recorded the following:
“ 1. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the Aks
Shjara which is stated to be the document mentioned at para-3
of the recital clause of the Sale Deed dated 08.11.1993 executed
by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court in his favour.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 4 of 14
(Annexure P-1). The aforesaid document was required to be
placed on record to establish the manner in which the plot of
land, subject matter of the Sale Deed admeasuring 650 sq. yds,
(13 biswas) out of Khasra No.965 situated in village Bahapur,
Tehsil, Mehrauli, New Delhi was bounded.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states
that the pleadings in the present petition qua respondents No.2
and 3 are complete. While it is the stand of respondent No.2
DJB that booster pumping station has been in existence at the
site since the year 1951 and the same had been handed over to
the predecessor-In-interest of respondent No.2 in the year 1970
and further, that respondent No.2 is not in occupation of any
land belonging to the petitioner as alleged by him, respondent
No.3/LAC has filed a counter affidavit stating inter alia that the
land, subject matter of the present petition, namely, land
admeasuring 13 biswas in Khasra No.965 has not been
acquired as per the records available in the Office of the LAC.
3. On 27.07.2011, while recording the submissions of the
respective parties, this Court was prima facie of the opinion
that it appears to be a case of disputed identity of land. Further,
in view of the fact that the petitioner had placed on record a
copy of the Sale Deed dated 08.11.1993 but had not enclosed
therewith the site plan enclosed as Annexure-D to the Sale
Deed, directions were issued to him to place on record the said
document. Accordingly, a copy of the Aks Shajra has been
placed on record.
4. In view of the fact that the identity of the land owned by the
petitioner in terms of the Sale Deed can be established only
upon carrying out a demarcation thereof by the Revenue
Authorities, the present petition is disposed of with liberty
granted to the petitioner to approach the Revenue Authorities
for demarcation of the land, subject matter of the Sale Deed
dated 8.11.1993. As and when the petitioner makes such a
request, the Revenue Authorities shall take necessary steps to
undertake demarcation so as to identify the land purchased by
the petitioner on the basis of the aforesaid Sale Deed
specifically described in Annexure-D which has been mentioned
in para-3 of the Sale Deed. The demarcation shall be conducted
by the Revenue Authorities in a time bound manner and
preferably within a period of four months from the date of
receipt of such a representation from the petitioner. It is further
directed that the Revenue Authorities shall take necessary steps
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 5 of 14
to notify the respondent No.2/DJB and respondent No.3/LAC as
to the date and time when the demarcation is proposed to be
conducted so that the concerned officers from the said
Departments arrange to remain present at the site. After such
intimation, the absence of the officers of the said Departments
on the relevant date and time, shall not be available as a
ground to lay a challenge to the demarcation report at a later
stage.
5. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the demarcation report,
it shall be entitled to seek its remedies as per law.
6. The petition is disposed of.”
9. That as the Respondents failed to comply with the order dated
18.01.2012, the Petitioner filed Contempt Petition, CCP No. 77/2013. This
Court, vide order dated 09.12.2014, was pleased to dispose of the said Contempt
Petition, observing, inter alia , as follows:
“ After some arguments, there is consensus between the parties
that demarcation proceedings shall be carried out by the
respondents by TSM method in accordance with the order dated
18th Jan, 2012 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
WP(C) 536/2011. The cost for the demarcation shall be
deposited by the petitioner within a period of two weeks.
Thereafter, the demarcation is directed to be carried out within
a period of four weeks.
With the aforesaid order and direction, the present contempt
petition and application stands disposed of."
10. That in pursuance of the direction of the order dated 18.01.2012 passed in
W.P (C) No. 536/2011, the office of the SDM, Kalkaji carried out demarcation
of the entire Khasra No. 965 and submitted the report on 08.02.2018. Since
there was some calculation mistake in conversation of areas mentioned in sq.
yards, the surveyor submitted a corrected table with the area statement on
24.04.2018. Relevant portion of the said demarcation report dated 08.02.2018
records the following:
“……According to marks, the boundary wall of Delhi Jal Board
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 6 of 14
does not fall in Khasra no.965. Some part of the park, and other
park, DDA flats of 56 Block and way falls in Khasra no. 965. lts
detailed report is recorded in the computerised map prepared by
Dhyani Surveyor. As per record, ownership of Khasra No. 965 (0-
13) biswa is recorded of Citicap Housing Development Ltd and the
ownership of Khasra No. 965 Min area 0-14 biswa is recorded as
government in possession. As per demarcation TSM Khasra No. 965
area (1-7) is situated in CR Park and Tatima of Khasra No. 965
have not been made. Due to this it cannot be said that where the
private land will fall and the government land will fall. But the
entire land of Khasra No. 965 has been used by the government.
Which also includes private land. Therefore no problem has been
faced during demarcation. Demarcation concluded.”
11. That the Petitioner thereafter filed various representations with the
Respondents for acquiring the land in question and to award market value of the
said land as compensation to the Petitioner or in the alternative, to allot another
plot to the Petitioner having same market value as that of the land in question.
However, no response was received from the Respondents. The Petitioner is
therefore constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
12. Mr. Pawanjit Singh Bindra, Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner
submitted that the Respondents have deprived the Petitioner of its valuable
rights without following the due process of law. No one can be deprived of
his/her property without payment of adequate and fair compensation. It is the
contention of the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that it is an admitted
position that the Petitioner is the registered owner of the land in question and no
acquisition has ever taken place with respect to the said land.
13. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision dated
08.01.2020 passed in the case of Vidya Devi Vs State of Himachal Pradesh ,
Civil Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 2020 to substantiate that the State cannot dispossess
a citizen from his property except in accordance with the procedure established
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 7 of 14
under the law. The Petitioner further relied upon the case of Sukh Dutt Ratra &
Anr. Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported as 2022 SCC Online SC
410 to submit that the State cannot, merely on the ground of delay and laches,
evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom their private property
has been expropriated.
14. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that there are
no disputed questions of fact involved in the present case and therefore, the
present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable.
15. It has been argued on behalf of the Petitioner that there was no bar on the
erstwhile owners to sell the land in question as the same was never acquired by
the Government. He argues that the land in question has been sold to the
Petitioner, who is the sole and absolute owner of the said land. He further
argues that even if it is assumed that the Petitioner was never put in possession
of the land in question, the Petitioner, being the owner of the land in question,
has a right to seek compensation in respect of the said land.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
16. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 3/ DDA submitted that present Writ Petition is not
maintainable as disputed question of facts are involved in the present case and
the same can only be effectively adjudicated before a civil Court having
appropriate jurisdiction. In order to support his contention, the Learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance on the Judgment dated 03.12.2018 passed in the
case of Roshina T. Versus Abdul Azeez K.T., (2019) 2 SCC 329. Learned
Senior Counsel further submitted that the sale deed dated 08.11.1993 is a
collusive attempt to grab a government property. He further submitted that the
land was purchased in the year 1993 and the Petitioner has not made even a
single averment in the entire petition as to when the petitioner took possession
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 8 of 14
of the land. Learned Senior Counsel further sought dismissal of the petition on
the ground of delay and laches as the land in question was purchased in the year
1993 and the present petition for grant of possession/compensation has been
filed in the year 2022.
Legal Analysis based on the facts of the present case
17. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and also examined the
documents placed on record by the Petitioner and the Judgments relied upon by
the parties.
18. From the perusal of the present writ petition, the following facts emerge:
(1) The Petitioner became the owner of the land in question by virtue
of a registered sale deed dated 08.11.1993 duly executed by the Ld.
Registrar of this Court in favour of the Petitioner.
(2) The representations placed on record by the Petitioner reveal that
the farmers were in possession of the un-acquired land. However,
the physical possession of the land in question was never handed
over to the Petitioner.
(3) As per the pleadings of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition, it
appears that the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.3 for the
first time on 17.11.1997 for obtaining possession of the land in
question, despite of the fact that the sale deed in favour of the
Petitioner was executed on 08.11.1993.
(4) The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner decades
after its alleged dispossession.
(5) The Petitioner placed on record two (2) demarcation reports,
however, the exact identification of the land in question could not
be verified in any of the said reports. In fact, the exact
identification of the land in question is in dispute even as on date.
As per the first demarcation report, part of the land in question is in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 9 of 14
possession of Delhi Jal Board whereas as per the second
demarcation report, the land in question is in possession of DDA.
(6) As per the Counter Affidavit filed by the Delhi Jal Board in W.P
(C) No. 536/2011, booster pumping station has been in existence at
the site since the year 1951 and the same had been handed over to
the predecessor-in-interest of the Delhi Jal Board in the year 1970.
19. It is no more res integra that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is
not intended to supersede statutory remedy. The High Court has the discretion
to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party has an
adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. In the case of Baburam Prakash
Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parish Ad Now Zila Parishad,
(1969) 1 SCR 518 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that;
“ 3. It is a well-established proposition of law that when an
alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant
he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke
the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
prerogative writ. It is true that the existence of a statutory
remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to
issue a writ. But, as observed by this Court in Rashid
Ahmed v. Municipal Board, Kairana [1950 SCR 566] “the
existence of an adequate legal remedy is a thing to be taken
into consideration in the matter of granting writs” and where
such a remedy exists it will be a sound exercise of discretion to
refuse to interfere in a writ petition unless there are good
grounds therefore. But it should be remembered that the rule
of exhaustion of statutory remedies before a writ is granted is
a rule of self imposed limitation, a rule of policy, and
discretion rather than a rule of law and the court may
therefore in exceptional cases issue a writ such as a writ of
certiorari notwithstanding the fact that the statutory remedies
have not been exhausted .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 10 of 14
20. Further in State of Bihar v. Jain Plastics and Chemicals Ltd., (2002) 1
SCC 216 : 2001 SCC OnLine SC 1374, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated
that;
“ 3. …………..It is settled law that when an alternative and
equally efficacious remedy is open to the litigant, he should be
required to pursue that remedy and not invoke the writ
jurisdiction of the High Court. Equally, the existence of
alternative remedy does not affect the jurisdiction of the court
to issue writ, but ordinarily that would be a good ground in
refusing to exercise the discretion under Article 226 .”
(Emphasis Supplied)
21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Syed Maqbool Ali Vs State of
Uttar Pradesh reported as 2011 (15) SCC 383, with regard to delay in filing a
writ petition, especially when such filing is made decades after dispossession
from the subject land, observed that:
“High Courts should also be cautious in entertaining writ
petitions filed decades after the dispossession, seeking
directions for acquisition and payment of compensation. It is
not uncommon for villagers to offer/donate some part of their
lands voluntarily for a public purpose which would benefit them
or the community - as for example, construction of an access
road to the village or their property, or construction of a village
tank or a bund to prevent flooding/erosion. When they offer
their land for such public purpose, the land would be of little or
negligible value. But decades later, when land values increase,
either on account of passage of time or on account of
developments or improvements carried out by the State, the
land holders come up with belated claims alleging that their
lands were taken without acquisition and without their consent.
When such claims are made after several decades, the State
would be at a disadvantage to contest the claim, as it may not
have the records to show in what circumstances the lands were
given/donated and whether the land was given voluntarily.
Therefore, belated writ petitions, without proper explanation
for the delay, are liable to be dismissed.”
22. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the law laid down
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Maqbool Ali (Supra), this Court is of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 11 of 14
considered view that the present matter involves disputed questions of fact
which cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition. The Petitioner claims to be the
purchaser of the land in question. However, it appears that the Respondents
were in possession of the land in question even before the execution of the sale
deed in respect of the said land in favour of the Petitioner. There appears to be
nothing on record to show that the vacant possession of the land in question was
ever handed over to the Petitioner. The identity of the land in question is still
under dispute and the issue as to in whose possession is the land in question is
yet to be established. How, when and under what circumstances, the
Respondents came into possession of the land in question is also to be
ascertained. All these facts, according to this Court, have to be established by
leading evidence in accordance with law. The Petitioner has to establish its right
under the law to claim the substantial relief as claimed in the present Writ
Petition. Merely by placing on record the Sale Deed will not absolve the
Petitioner from its burden to establish its right to claim compensation in respect
of the land in question when the factum of possession in favour of the
Petitioners not established from the documents available on record. In view of
several factual issues which still remain open for adjudication in the light of
evidence, therefore, the Writ Petition is not the appropriate remedy for the
Petitioner.
23. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon Vidya Devi (supra)
Civil Appeal Nos. 60-61 of 2020 to substantiate that the state cannot dispossess
a citizen from his/her property except in accordance with the procedure
established under the law. In the said matter, the appellant was an illiterate
widow staying in the rural area. She was the original owner of the subject
property and the Respondent State admitted the fact that they took the land of
the appellant for construction of road without acquiring the land or paying
compensation. In addition, as per the directions of the Court, the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 12 of 14
State acquired the land of the similarly situated people and paid compensation
to them. The appellant, being an illiterate widow staying in the rural area, could
not take up timely measures to approach the Court. Thus, considering the
overall facts of the case, with an intention to do substantial justice to the parties,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, invoked its extra ordinary jurisdiction under
Article 136 and 142 of the Constitution and granted the relief to the appellant
therein. In the present case, the Petitioner is a subsequent purchaser who
purchased the land in question from the earlier original/ recorded owners,
however, there is nothing on record to show that the possession of the said land
in question was handed over to the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner is a
Company doing commercial transactions and cannot be equated with an
illiterate widow residing in the rural area as was the case in Vidya Devi (supra).
Additionally, the identity of the land in question and the fact as to who is in
possession of the said land in question is also under dispute. The facts of the
present case are considerately different from the facts in the case of Vidya Devi
(supra). Therefore, the Petitioner cannot be extended the relief as granted to the
appellant in the case of Vidya Devi (supra).
24. The Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also relied upon Sukh Dutt
Ratra (supra) to submit that the State cannot merely, on the ground of delay and
laches, evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property
has been expropriated. In Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra), the State admitted the fact
that they utilised the appellant’s land for the construction of road without paying
compensation. Unlike in the present case, the appellants in the case of Sukh
Dutt Ratra (supra) were owners in possession of the subject land in question.
Further, there was no dispute with regard to the identity of the land under
dispute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in view of the facts and circumstances of
the said case, invoked its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 and 142
of the Constitution of India and granted relief to the appellants therein. After
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 13 of 14
examining both the cases relied upon by the Counsel for the Petitioner, this
Court is of the considered opinion that the facts of both the cases are different
and distinguishable from the facts of the present case and therefore, the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid two judgements are
not applicable to the facts of the present case.
25. In view of the facts and the reasoning as discussed herein above, this
Court is not inclined to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and the present Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed. The Petitioner is however at liberty to pursue other remedies as
available under the law for establishing its rights to claim substantial reliefs as
claimed under this Petition. It is clarified that this Court has examined the
matter on the limited issue of its maintainability and no opinion has been
expressed on the merits of the Petition. The parties are left to bear their own
cost.
GAURANG KANTH
(JUDGE)
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
(JUDGE)
JULY 06, 2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:RITU
DHIRANIA
Signing Date:08.07.2022
12:20:56
W.P (C) No. 8312/2022 Page 14 of 14