ORDER Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.
1. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 15.2.1990 passed by the Special Secretary of Delhi Administration rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land. By this writ petition the petitioner also seeks for a direction to the respondents for allotment of an alternative plot in favour of the petitioner in terms of the scheme adopted by the respondents in the year 1961.
2. Land of the petitioner measuring 9 biswas comprised in Khasra No.1189/317 situated in Village Kilokari was acquired by the respondent. In respect of the aforesaid acquisition proceedings an award was passed on 16.5.1961. The petitioner received compensation as admitted by her sometime in the month of April, 1969 and the construction standing on the said land was demolished by the respondent after acquisition of the land sometime in the month of March, 1969. The petitioner relies upon the scheme adopted by the respondents in the year 1961. She claims allotment of an alternative plot of land in view of the aforesaid acquisition of her land in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme adopted by the respondent in 1961. An application claiming allotment of alternative plot of land in view of acquisition of her land was submitted sometime in the year 1982. The said application was considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by the communication issued on 15.2.1990 intimating that her case was carefully examined and that the said prayer was rejected on the ground that her case was time barred as she should have submitted her application before 15.12.1963 whereas she submitted the application only in the year 1982 for land acquired under award dated 20.10.1961. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication the petitioner has preferred this writ petition on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain the delay, if any, in submitting the aforesaid application seeking for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land. It was also submitted that the said order does not take notice of the circular and the scheme adopted by the respondent in the year 1961 and the date of 15.12.1963 fixed by the respondent in the public notice was not binding on the petitioner. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 47. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Nitya Nand M.Joshi & Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and another, ; S.B . Kishore Vs. Union of India & others, and the decision in State of U.P.
Vs. Smt. Pista Devi, .
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that under the aforesaid scheme adopted by the respondent in the year 1961 the petitioner did not have a right to be provided with an alternative plot. The only right she had was to be considered for allotment of a plot in lieu of acquisition of her land. He also submitted that there was inordinate delay and laches on her part in lodging the claim for allotment of alternative plot and that her claim was time barred. In support of the contention the counsel relied upon the Press Notification dated 23.11.1963 issued by the respondent, a copy of which is placed on record. He also relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Nand Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 29 as also the decision in Jaswant Kaur Vs. Lt. Governor, .
5. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary to put on record certain admitted facts in the present writ petition. The land of the petitioner measuring 9 biswas situated in Village Kilokari was acquired by the respondent pursuant to which an award was passed on 16.5.1961. The respondent adopted a scheme in 1961. Under clause 8 of the said scheme anyone whose land has been acquired as a result of the notification mentioned in clause 8 of the scheme was entitled to apply for allotment of a plot. After the aforesaid acquisition the construction of the petitioner standing on the acquired land was also demolish by the respondent sometime in March, 1969 and that she received the compensation sometime in April, 1969. The application for allotment of alternative land in lieu of acquired land was filed by the petitioner in the year 1982. Public notice was also issued by the respondents in which applications from persons whose lands were acquired between the period from 1.1.1961 and 15.11.1963 were called for consideration of allotment of alternative land. It was made clear in the said notification that Delhi Administration would not take any responsibility for allotment of alternative plot of land if applications in the aforesaid regard were not received on or before 15.12.1963.
6. Strong reliance was placed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner on the decision of this court in Shiv Devi Virlley (supra). In that case reference to the Full Bench was made on the question as to who is entitled to the benefit of allotment of a plot on the acquisition of land. Earlier to the decision of the Full Bench in the said case the view taken by various benches of this Court was that individuals whose land had been acquired could be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purpose in certain circumstances. Thereafter in Krishan Kumar Manik Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 225, it was held that a person who owned the land at the time when notification under Section 4 was issued and not the subsequent transferees would be entitled to apply for an alternative plot. The Full bench disagreed with the view taken in Krishan Kumar Manik's case and confirmed the earlier view taken that individuals whose land had been acquired would be entitled to allotment of an alternative plot in certain circumstances. The said Full Bench decision came to be considered in a subsequent Full Bench decision of this Court in Rama Nand Vs. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 29, wherein the aforesaid position was reiterated when it was held that an individual whose land had been acquired for planned development of Delhi had no absolute right for allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules.
7. In the present case the application of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that she is not entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of her acquired land. The ground for rejection of her application was that her case was time barred as she was to submit her application before 15.12.1963 whereas she submitted an application in 1982, for the land acquired by award dated 20.10.1961. The counsel for the petitioner also sought to rely upon the Full Bench decision in Shiv Devi Virlley (supra) for his plea that the delay in filing the application should have been condoned in similar way as was done in the aforesaid case of Shiv Devi Virlley. However, on a carefully reading of both the cases I find that the facts of the two cases are distinguishable, for in the aforesaid case although the petitioner applied late for allotment of land in accordance with the scheme she had given reasons for making the application late which was accepted by the respondent and an alternative plot was directed to be allotted to her as she was found to be entitled to get the same. The aforesaid recommendation was however, later on withdrawn without giving reasons and in that view of the matter the Full Bench issued a direction directing for allotment of an alternative plot to the petitioner therein. The facts in the present case are distinguishable, for the land was acquired under the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 16.5.1961 and the award was passed on 7.9.1961. A Public notice was issued by the respondents on 23.11.1963 inviting eligible persons to make application for allotment of alternative plots by 15.12.1963. The said public notice was widely circulated and was also published in the Newspapers, a copy of which is placed on record. In the said public notice it was specifically stated by the respondents that the Delhi Administration would not take any responsibility for allotment of alternative plot of land if the applications in that regard were not received before 15.12.1963. The petitioner, admittedly received the compensation and her constructions on the acquired land were demolished in the month of March and April, 1969. Even thereafter no application came to be made for a long time and after expiry of about 13 years the petitioner for the first time filed an application for allotment of an alternative plot. Even in the application filed by the petitioner on 23.3.1982 for allotment of alternative plot, she has not given any reason for belated filing of the application except for saying again in column No.12 that she was an illiterate lady and was not aware of the scheme. Thus there was no explanation at all worth the name for the delay in filing the application. Therefore, there is was inordinate delay and laches in petitioner approaching the Competent Authority for allotment of the alternative plot in lieu of her acquired land. In this connection reference may be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jaswant Kaur (Supra) wherein this court dismissed a similar petition on the ground of gross delay and laches. In the said case the petitioner claimed to have made an application for allotment of an alternative plot of land on 17.4.1965, but the respondent DDA denied having received any such application. The writ petition was filed on the basis of the impugned decision communicated by letter dated 3.12.1990 which was taken on the application of the petitioner dated 19.7.1989, which was held to be highly belated. In my considered opinion the facts of the said case are similar to the case in hand and therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
8. In Star Wire (India) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, the Supreme Court after referring to the ratio laid down in various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court held that laches close the gates of the courts for a person who approaches the court belatedly. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Supreme Court relied upon an earlier decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay Vs. Industrial Development & Investment Co. (P) Ltd., . In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, , it was held by the Supreme Court that when the writ petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle of laches or undue delay disentitled the writ petitioner for discretionary relief under Article 226.
Although the aforesaid two decisions were rendered in the context of delay and laches of the petitioner in approaching the High Court under Article 226, I do not see any reason why similar consideration should not be made applicable to a matter where a time limit was fixed for approaching the authority and doing the needful and the same was done after expiry of period of 13 years.
9. On the other hand, decisions relied upon by the Counsel appearing for the petitioner are found to be not applicable to the facts of the present case. I have already indicated why the ratio of the decision in Shiv Devi Virlley's case (supra) is not applicable. Nityanand M. Joshi's case (supra) deals with the provisions of Limitation Act which have no relevance with the present case. The other two decisions also have no relevance at all with the issue involved in the case.
10. In the light of the aforesaid discussions I am of the considered opinion that the respondent did not commit any illegality in holding that the application of the petitioner was time barred and bad on the ground of laches and inordinate delay. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.