Dev Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 7124 Chatt

                                      1

                                                                            NAFR

                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                             WA No. 650 of 2022


    Dev Lal Yadav S/o (Late) Udhoram Yadav Aged About 70 Years R/o

    Village Dundera, Tehsil Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

                                                                   ----Appellant

                                    Versus

   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban

      Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar

      (Naya Raipur), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

   2. Collector Durg Durg, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

   3. Commissioner      Municipal   Corporation,   Bhilai,   District   :   Durg,

      Chhattisgarh

   4. Estate Officer Municipal Corporation, Bhilai, District : Durg,

      Chhattisgarh

                                                             ---- Respondents

(Cause Title Taken from Case Information System) _____________________________________________________________

For Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Dubey, Advocate.

For Respondents 1&2 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Deputy Government Advocate.

For Respondents 3&4 : Mr. H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amit Tirkey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice

28/11/2022

Heard Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the

appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government

Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr.

H.B.Agrawal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 3

and 4.

2. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 11.11.2022

passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4610 of 2022, dismissing

the writ petition on the ground of gross delay in preferring the writ petition.

3. The Special Area Development Authority (for short, the SADA),

Bhilai, had allotted a plot of land measuring 50X60 sq.ft = 3,000 sq.ft.

situated at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, under the

Motilal Nehru Nagar Awasiya Yojna, by letter dated 20.11.1995 to the

appellant on payment of a premium amount of Rs. 39,000/- plus 2% as

ground rent, i.e. Rs. 780/-. Though, the order of allotment did not indicate

any specific period of time within which the amount was to be paid, the

appellant in the writ petition, amongst others, in paragraph 8.2, has

accepted that owing to some financial difficulties, he could not deposit the

premium amount within the given time.

4. On a query of the Court as to what was the specified time, Mr. Dubey

submits that the normal practice in such cases is that the amount is

required to be paid within two months and that is how stand is taken in the

writ petition that the amount is not paid within the given time.

5. It is relevant to note that SADA, Bhilai was abolished in the year 1998

and in its place, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai came into being.

6. The appellant had filed an application on 24.10.2000 to the Municipal

Corporation, Bhilai stating that he could not deposit the premium amount

pursuant to the letter dated 20.11.1995 and requesting the respondent

No.3 to grant one opportunity to make the payment of premium amount,

and on receipt of such application, a resolution was adopted on 02.07.2004

permitting the appellant to deposit the aforesaid amount, but no letter was

issued enabling the appellant to deposit the premium amount. There were

correspondences between the respondent No. 1 and 3 in connection with

the aforesaid, but no letter was issued to the appellant to enable him to

deposit the aforesaid premium amount and it is in that circumstance, the

appellant had approached this Court praying for a direction to the

respondents, and more particularly, respondent No. 3, to expedite the

proceedings for allotment of the plot of land to the appellant and to enable

him to execute the lease deed after deposit of the premium amount.

7. On the own admission of the appellant he could not deposit the

premium amount within a period of two months from 20.11.1995, i.e., the

date of letter of allotment and after about 27 years of such allotment, the

appellant has approached this Court, amongst others, for permitting him to

deposit the premium amount.

8. The learned Single Judge, in the above background has observed in

paragraphs 4 and 5, as follows:

"4. This Court at the outset is of the opinion that the writ

petition is highly belated and for the inordinate delay,

there is no plausible explanation provided by the

petitioner from the dates which are reflected in the

pleadings, the first allotment of land was made in the year

1995 i.e around 27 years ago. Subsequently, a resolution

was passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004,

which again is around 18 years ago. A reminder

resolution thereafter has been passed in the year 2012,

which again is more than 10 years from now.

5. Under the given factual backdrop, the present writ

petition at this juncture at this belated stage would not be

maintainable at all and thus the present writ petition,

since it suffers from delay laches, deserves to be and is

accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay."

9. We are not persuaded to take a view other than the view taken by the

learned Single Judge and therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and

accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

                        Sd/-                                          Sd/-
                (Arup Kumar Goswami)                            (Sanjay Agrawal)
                    CHIEF JUSTICE                                  JUDGE
Amit