Delhi High Court
Daya Ram vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 July, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The land of the petitioner was acquiredvide
Award dated 29.3.1962 for Planned Development of Delhi
and the petitioner was paid compensation in May and
July, 1966. The petitioner applied on 29.5.1995 for
allotment of a plot under a Central Govt. Scheme dated
2.5.1961 for such alternative allotment and the
petitioner was asked to submit certain documents vide
letter dated 15.9.1995. The petitioner submitted the
documentson 6.10.1995. Since there was no response,
petitioner sent a reminder dated 17.3.1997. The writ
petition was filed on 6.1.1999 alleging that the
application of the petitioner was not even decided.
This is the conspectus of the facts as set out in the
writ petition.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1
and 3, it is stated that the petitioner is guilty of
"supressovari and suggestion falsi" in view of the fact
that the petitioner had made earlier an application on
25.9.1980which was rejected on 27.5.1982 being time
barred since the application has been made almost 18
years later. Another application was made by the
petitioner dated 29.5.1995 and in the said application
against the column "Whether the applicant has applied
earlier for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
this or any other acquired land" it was mentioned `No'.
This application of the petitioner is also stated to
have been rejected on 15.4.1999.
3. Respondents 1 and 3 have also stated in the
counter that there is no vested right in the petitioner
to get an alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired
for which compensation has been paid in view of the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rama Nand Vs. DDA,
AIR 1994Delhi 29. It is also stated in the counter
affidavit that cut of date 15.12.63 has been provided
for making of application under the policy and
admittedly the petitioner has failed to make the
application within time.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the delay in making the application is liable to be
condoned and in any case an opportunity should have
been given to the petitioner to explain the delay
before taking on decision on the same. Learned counsel
for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the
Supreme Court in S.B. Kishore Vs. Union of India and
others, and of the Division Bench of
this Court in CW No.1967/1987, Rattan Singh Vs. Union
of India and others decided on 2.11.1989.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the petitioner is an un-educated man and
therefore, inadvertently against the relevant column in
the application of 1995, the answer was given as `No'
and the factum of the earlier application was thus not
disclosed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
It is apparent from the pleadings that not only
has the petitioner not disclosed in the application
made in 1995 the factum of his having made of earlier
application in 1980 which was rejected in 1982, there
is not even a whisper of these facts even in the writ
petition. The writ petitionrefers only to an
application made in 1995 and is completely silent about
the previous application of 1980 which was rejected in
1982 and which rejection was never challenged by the
petitioner. I am thus of the considered view that
there is force in the submission of the respondents as
set out in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is
guilty of suppression of material facts and the
petition is thus liable to be rejected. I am not
satisfied with the explanation offered in court that
the relevant column of the application made in 1995 was
inadvertently answered as `No' specially when the
petitioner has not mentioned these facts even in the
present writ petition and it is apparent that in order
to cover up the non challenge to the rejection in 1982
of the earlier application of 1980, these facts were
deliberately concealed with the hope that the prior
application may not come to light.
7. In view of the aforesaid position the judgments
relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner for
condensation of delay would have no application. A
person who comes with un-clean hands before the court
is not entitled to any indulgence more so in exercise
of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts the writ petition
is dismissed with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
