High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenging the judgment dated 07.12.2021, passed by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant (Original Petitioner) has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Appellant is that he had constructed a shop in Meena Bazar, in the year 1971 and had paid damages to DDA upto the year 1975. Between the period from 1975 to 1976, a demolition drive was conducted, during which the shop of the Appellant was demolished but he was not allotted any alternative shop. The contention of the Appellant is that on 11.10.1977, DDA framed a policy for allotment of alternative place or shops to Motia Khan Steel Merchants, who were evicted from Motia Khan area as their shops were demolished during the same demolition drive.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Learned Single Judge has erred in not granting the said relief and has erroneously dismissed the writ petition as being barred by delay and laches. It was the case of the Appellant before the Learned Single Judge that Respondents never responded to his representations over the years and therefore, the petition was not barred by delay.
HC’s Observations and Held:
After hearing both the sides Court observed that the shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year 1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the Court except for a bald assertion that his several representations were pending with the DDA and his matter for allotment of alternative shop/site was under consideration.
Court stated that way-back in 2010, Appellant was duly informed that he was not eligible for an alternative shop/site. It cannot thus be contended by the Appellant that his representations had been pending over the years with no response from the departments concerned. Court also stated that even assuming for the sake of argument that the representation was wrongly rejected by Respondent No.1, even thereafter, the Appellant waited for 11 years before filing the writ petition and has been unable to satisfactorily explain as to what prevented the Appellant from filing a writ petition soon after the representation was rejected.
Court also stated that the Learned Single Judge has rightly noted that though seemingly, it is an innocuous prayer but clearly it is an attempt on the part of the Appellant to create a fresh cause of action in order to overcome the delay and laches and cannot be countenanced. Court stated that it is a settled law that repeated representation does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh cause of action so as to overcome delay and laches which in this case is 46 years from the date the shop was demolished and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, with not an iota of explanation enabling this Court to condone the delay.
Bench: Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti Singh
Case Title: Mohd Suleman v. NDMC & Ors.
Case Details: LPA 48/2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
