SITA RAM BHANDAR SOCIETY, NEW DELHI v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI & Ors.

1.4. A reading of the extract from the award reveals that wells and structures connected with wells, and irrigation facilities have been referred to therein and an independent wall is not even remotely the subject matter. G Counsel for the appellant, however, seriously objected to this explanation by submitting that no plea doubting the accuracy of the document having been raised in the counter affidavit, the respondents were now precluded H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A from making this submission. However, in the light of the context in which the entire matter has been dealt with in the Award, there can be no doubt that the entry 'wall' should be read as 'well' vis-a-vis Khasra No.157. No question had ever been raised by the appellant with B regard to the presence of a wall in the objections filed under section SA or even in the responses filed to the notices under section 9 of the Act and the only prayer was that the land be exempted from acquisition. These omissions become more significant as several other c landowners had claimed compensation for the superstructures that were existing on the acquired land. It is also equally significant that no question had ever been raised by the appellant with regard to the existence of a wall or superstructure in any of the litigations prior to the present set of writ petitions. Appellant referred to the objections dated 15th November 1966 showing the existence of a wall. These objections are meaningless as they had not been filed in response to the notification under section. 4 which had been published in the year E 1959 and were filed after the declaration under section 6 had been made and are, therefore, an obvious after thought. Despite the claim under this document, no plea with regard to the existence of a wall had been raised at any stage till the filing of the present petitions in the year 1995. [Para 11] [525-A.;H] 0 F

1.5. Appellant pointed out that from the affidavit dated 30th July 1996 sworn by the Under Secretary, Land and Building Department, it was clear that the appellant continued to remain in possession on account of the G stay of dispossession granted by the High Court on .15th July 1981 in writ petition and the confirmation of the said order on 16th September 1982 and as such the stand of the appellants that possession had been taken was not correct. However, it is already observed that possession H . ...... I }- ' t _\, ... -1 .. -.t ~ '> SITA RAM BHAN DAR SOCIETY, v. LT. GOVERNOR, GOVT. OF N.C.T. DELHI 511 had been taken between 20th and 24th June 1980, and A the acquired land thus stood vested in the State free from all encumbrances under section 16 of the Act. It is also relevant that the said writ petition was dismissed meaning thereby that the said order should automatically be vacated as well. Even assuming for a moment that the a petitioner had re-possessed the acquired land at some stage would be of no consequence in view of the provisions of section 16. Therefore, even assuming that the appellant had re-entered the land on account of the various interim orders granted by the courts, or even c ., otherwise, it would have no effect for two reasons, that the suits/petitions were ultimately dismissed and that the land once having vested in the Government by virtue of section 16 of the Act, re-entry by the land owner would not obliterate the consequences of vesting. [Paras 12] [526-A-D; G-H; 527-A-B] D

1.6. The petitioner has been able to frustrate the acquisition and development of the land right from the year 1980 onwards by taking recourse to one litigation after the other. The record reveals that all the suits/writ E petitions etc. that had been filed had failed. Undoubtedly, every citizen has a right to utilize all legal means which are open to him in a bid to vindicate and protect his rights, but if the court comes to the conclusion that the pleas raised are frivolous and meant to frustrate and F delay an acquisition which is in public interest, deterrent action is called for. This is precisely the situation in the instant matter [Para 13] [527-8-0]