JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.
1. The petitioners filed the present writ petition challenging the acquisition of lands comprised in Khasra No.68 (12 bighas 8 biswas) 84 (9 bigh-
as), 85 (8 bighas 5 biswas) and 478/496/87 min (11 bighas 3 biswas) situat-
ed within the revenue estate of village Masoodpur, Delhi. The writ petition
was admitted to regular hearing by this court on 26th October, 1979 and
stay of dispossession of the petitioners from the lands subject matter of
the writ petition was granted. The ex-parte interim order regarding stay of
dispossession was confirmed till the disposal of the writ petition vide
order dated 5th February, 1980. In the writ petition the case of the petitioners mainly rested on section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. The land
of the petitioners was notified for acquisition vide notifications dated
23rd January, 1965 and 26/28th December, 1968 under sections 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act, respectively. The petitioners claimed that the acquisition proceedings in this case were not concluded and a notice dated 12th
February, 1979 under section 55 of the Delhi Development Act was served on
the respondents. It was further averred that the respondents did not commence further acquisition proceedings within six months and issued notices
under section 9 and 10 of the Land Acquisition Act on 17th September, 1979
which was much beyond the statutory period of six months.
2. A perusal of the writ petition shows that the case of the petitioners
entirely rested on section 55 of the Delhi Development Act. In fact this
admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties when on 15th February,
1995 they appeared before the court and made a statement that the point
regarding section 55 of the Delhi Development Act was pending for decision
before a Full Bench of this court and, therefore, adjournment of hearing of
the writ petition was sought to await the decision of the Full Bench. The
decision of the Full Bench was delivered on 14th December, 1995. One of the
respondents moved an application that the writ petition be listed for
disposal in view of the Full Bench decision of this court which concluded
the matter against the petitioners in the present writ petition. Faced with
this situation the petitioners moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.M.No.7194/97) for amendment of the writ
petition. The respondents have opposed the application mainly on the ground
that entirely a new case is sought to be set up by way of amendment of the
writ petition. It was also submitted that the amendment sought was highly
belated. On merits also the prayer for amendment of the writ petition was
contested on the ground that by way of amendment the petitioners wanted to
allege discrimination on the basis that certain lands which were acquired
under a different notification had been denotified on the ground that the
layout plans with respect thereto had been passed by the Government before
the notification was issued under section 4 of the Act. It was submitted
that in the present case also for the same reason the lands of the petitioners were liable to be denotified. This averment of the petitioners has
been contested by the respondents on the ground that there is no parity
between the two cases. It was submitted with reference to the earlier
notification where certain lands were later on exempted from acquisition
that in that case the notification mentioned outer boundaries of the lands
sought to be acquired, whereas in the present case the acquisition was by
specific khasra numbers. The notifications regarding acquisition in the
present case make specific reference to khasra numbers and, therefore, the
same reasoning could not be applied. Description of lands by boundaries is
in the nature of a general description of the lands sought to be covered.
The notification in the present case mentions specific khasra numbers which
shows that the acquiring authority had considered each parcel of land
before including it in the acquisition notifications. The acquisition has
been finally upheld by the court and, therefore, there is no question of
any portion of acquired land being exempted at this stage.
3. I have carefully considered the rival contentions of two learned
counsel for the parties. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
amendment sought by the petitioners cannot be allowed. The petitioners are
trying to set up a totally new case by way of amendment. A reference to the
entire writ petition shows that the case totally rests on the interpreta-
tion of section of the Delhi Development Act. Now at this stage when the
interpretation of section 55 of the Delhi Development Act went against the
petitioners in view of the decision of the Full Bench in Roshanara Begum
Vs. Union of India and Others AIR 1996 DELHI 206, the petitioners have made
a vain attempt to salvage the case by seeking an amendment of the writ
petition. By amendment a party cannot be permitted to introduce a totally
new case. Moreover as noticed earlier, the case sought to be introduced by
way of amendment also does not appear to be tenable in view of the facts
noted above. Discrimination can be urged on the basis of similar facts and
not when the facts in two cases are different. The contents of two notifications under reference are different.
4. Apart from this, on account of delay and latches also petitioners are
not entitled to seek amendment. The notification on which reliance is being
placed for purposes of pleading discrimination is more than thirty years
old. The petitioners never made even a whisper about the aspect of discrimination in the entire writ petition. Now that the only plea which was the
basis of the writ petition has been decided against the petitioners, the
petitioners have made an attempt to save their case in this manner. The
application for amendment is highly belated and thus suffers on account of
delay and latches. Besides, in the facts and circumstances of the case as
narrated hereinbefore, the application for amendment is mala fide. The same
is dismissed.
The result is that the only point raised in the writ petition regard-
ing section 55 of the Delhi Development Act having been decided by this
court against the petitioners, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.