Smt. Kanta Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 345 Del

57
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Pronounced on: 02.02.2009

+                       W.P. (C) 630/2009


      SMT. KANTA DEVI                                  ..... Petitioner
                        Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Advocate.

                  versus


      GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND OTHERS                 .... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Sanjay, Advocate.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers
      may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.    Whether the judgment should be
      reported in the Digest?

      S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (ORAL)

% The petitioner seeks writ or direction to the respondents to consider

her application for allotment of an alternative plot. The petitioner claims to

be daughter of one Late Sohan, owner of 32 bighas and 14 biswa land,

located in village Dhaka, acquired by Notification dated 13.11.1959. The

petitioner claims the reliefs sought in this proceedings on the basis of a deed

of relinquishment issued in her favour by the other legal heirs of Sohan on

28.4.98.

2. The petitioner contends that though the land was finally acquired in

1963 and land owners were required at that stage to apply for allotment of

alternative plot in terms of the Scheme evolved for such purpose in 1961,

the land owner availed of a second opportunity granted for the purpose by

the concerned authority in 1988. The petitioner has placed on record letter

dated 3.11.1999 and 12.2.2001, to support the contention that the

respondent authorities did not finally decide her application for allotment of

an alternative plot. Learned counsel also relied upon a Lieutenant

Governor's communication to the concerned Minister recommending

examination of the petitioner's request, for allotment by the appropriate

Divisional Commissioner. In these circumstances, it is contended that the

respondents' denial of the alternative plot is arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. The petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Dharamveer

Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (W.P.2675/95) decided on 3.1.2007 as

well as the another decision in Simla Devi v. Secretary (140 (2007) DLT

474).

4. The letter dated 12.2.2001 which has been produced by the petitioner

in support of these writ proceedings, reads as follows: -

"Government Delhi Land & Building Department (Alternative Branch) Vikas Bhavan: New Delhi- 110 002

No.f.33(5)/14/89/L&B/Alt./15959 Dated 12.2.2001

To,

Smt. Kanta Devi D/o Sh. Sohan Singh 72, Dhakka, Kingsway Camp Delhi.

Subject: - Allotment of alternative plot.

Madam,

With reference to your representation ated 15.11.2000 addressed to Home Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to inform you that your case was considered and rejected on the ground of being time- barred and rejection of the case was communicated to you vide this office letter dated 25.5.94.

Yours faithfully

Sd/-

Asstt. Housing Commissioner (Alt)"

5. Apart from not placing on record the rejection letter dated 27.5.94, the

petitioner has not adverted to the circumstances where the deceased Sohan,

land owner in fact applied for alternative plot in the year 1988. Concededly,

land was acquired finally in 1963. In terms of the Scheme, the land owner

had to apply within a stipulated period. In this case, the request for rejection

took place on 27.5.1994. There is no explanation on record why the

petitioner did not approach the Court at that stage. The letter dated

12.2.2001 (extracted above) reveals that the petitioner was aware about the

rejection of the application - for allotment in 1994 itself. In these

circumstances, reliance is placed on further representations asking for a

review as it were of the decision not to allot, in no manner extended her right

to be considered.

6. The Supreme Court has held that making repeated representations, by

itself, would not extend the period of limitation, wherever applicable. By

analogy repeated representations made in 1999 or 2001 did not by itself

extend the period within which the petitioner could have sought her

remedies. The reliance placed on the judgment in Simla Devi case (supra),

in the opinion of the Court is not apt. There the rejection took place in 1999

and the Writ Petitioner approached the Court in the year 2004. Even the

award in that case was announced on 19.12.1996. Similarly, the facts of

Dharamveer Sharma (supra) were entirely different; the Writ Petition was

filed in 1995. The allotment in that case had been granted in 1975, and

withdrawn later in 1989.

7. For the above reasons, the Court is of the opinion that Petition was

filed after an inordinate and unexplained delay. It is, therefore, suffers from

laches, and should not, therefore, be entertained.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 02, 2009 /vd/