Lt. Col. Nafe Singh Bhardwaj vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4836 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 20th October, 2010.

+                           W.P.(C) 16722/2006

%        LT. COL. NAFE SINGH BHARDWAJ                ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma & Mr.
                                Sandeep Malik, Advocates.

                                   Versus

         LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                     Through: Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
                              Mr.    Baankey     Bihari     Sharma,
                              Advocate for R-3.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner by this writ petition filed in September, 2006 seeks a

direction to the respondents to allot alternative plot to the petitioner as per

the Policy in Delhi, in lieu of land of the petitioner acquired by the Land &

Building Department of the Government of Delhi.

2. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired vide

notification dated 13th December, 1981 under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 and the award was announced on 22nd September,

1986 and the petitioner received the entire compensation amount on 5 th

November, 1986. The petitioner made a representation for an alternative

plot. It is also not in dispute that the said representation of the petitioner was

rejected vide order dated 6th November, 1987.

3. The petitioner, in the writ petition filed in the year 2006 has not

sought quashing of the order dated 6th November, 1987 rejecting his

application for alternative land. In my opinion, without the petitioner

seeking quashing of the order vide which, relief with respect to which

mandamus is claimed in this writ petition was denied to the petitioner, the

writ petition is not maintainable.

4. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a plea that the

writ petition filed after more than 19 years of the rejection of the

representation of the petitioner for alternative plot, is barred by laches,

waiver and acquiescence.

5. The petitioner in the writ petition has not given any explanation for

the said long delay save for pleading that the petitioner after 6th November,

1987 continued to represent till 1997; that after a gap of about 8 years, he

again applied for alternative plot in the year 2005 and whereafter the present

writ petition was filed in September, 2006.

6. However the petitioner in rejoinder, in response to the plea of the

respondents of the writ petition being barred by time has averred that there is

no delay and laches in filing the writ petition because the petitioner had been

representing from time to time. He as annexure-P-22 to the rejoinder has

also filed a list of persons, recommendation for allotment of alternative plot

to whom were made long after the acquisition of their land. However, the

respondents have had no occasion to deal with the said plea of the petitioner

taken in rejoinder for first time.

7. The respondents have relied upon the judgment dated 4 th September,

2002 of the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition

No.4160/2000 titled Charat Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The Division

Bench in that case held that the petitioners in that case having failed to

challenge the order dated 19th March, 1993 of rejection of their request for

alternative allotment, the mere act of making further representations would

not given them a fresh cause of action and the delay of seven years in

preferring the writ petition was held long enough to decline the discretionary

relief to the petitioners in that case. The counsel for the respondents has

urged that when the Division Bench dismissed the writ petition for similar

relief as in this case on account of delay of seven years, the question of

entertaining this writ petition after a delay of nineteen years does not arise.

8. Reference is also made to the judgment dated 20 th September, 2010 of

the Chief Justice‟s Bench of this Court in LPA No.674/2010 titled Mange

Ram Vs. Delhi Development Authority where also a writ petition claiming

alternative plot filed after long delay was dismissed holding that it was in the

realm of speculation and not in the sphere of reality and the petitioner could

not get the stale claim alive after five decades.

9. The counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judgment of

another Division Bench of this Court in Sunder Singh Vs. Union of India

2009 (108) DRJ 96 where also the writ petition for alternative plot in lieu of

acquired land preferred after long delay, was dismissed as barred by laches

holding that the scheme for the alternative plots was introduced to provide

for the actual and urgent need for proper accommodation of those whose

land has been acquired and the delay in preferring the writ petition showed

that there was no need.

10. Though in the present writ petition, it cannot be said that the petitioner

had applied for alternative plot after long delay, inasmuch as the

representation for alternative plot was made simultaneously with receipt of

compensation but the petitioner inspite of being unequivocally told on 6th

November, 1987 that he was not eligible or entitled, sat over his rights for

nineteen years before approaching this Court. There was a complete hiatus

in between the years 1988 and 2005 in the representations even being made

by the petitioner.

11. The petitioner has made detailed pleadings of his illustrious service in

Armed Forces but according to the petitioner himself he retired from the

Armed Forces in 1998; even if it were to be believed that the petitioner from

1987 to 1998 owing to his services was unable to prefer this writ petition,

there is no explanation for the delay of eight years after 1998. Repeated

representations of the petitioner cannot revive the rights of the petitioner

which have become barred by time or on account of laches, waiver and

acquiescence. Reference can also be made to Karnataka Power

Corporation Ltd Vs. K. Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322. What has been

held by the Division Bench in Sunder Singh qua the element of urgency in

such relief, is equally applicable for the delay even after rejection of the

representation.

12. Another aspect of the matter, having a bearing on the matter may also

be noted. The representation of the petitioner was rejected on 6 th November,

1987 owing to the reason that as per the Policy, entitlement for consideration

for alternative plot was only on satisfying inter alia the twin condition that

the land was acquired for planned development of Delhi and was placed at

the disposal of DDA. It is admitted position that the acquisition of the land

of the petitioner was neither for planned development of Delhi nor was the

land placed at the disposal of DDA. The acquisition of the land of the

petitioner was for the construction of a supplementary drain by the Public

Works Department. It is however further admitted that the original purpose

of construction of supplementary drain, was given up by Delhi

Administration even before the award was made and the acquired land was

transferred to the DDA for developing the land under the Planned

Development of Delhi Scheme. The petitioner after rejection on 6th

November, 1987 of his claim for alternative plot represented first on the

ground that his land should be de-notified since original purpose of

acquisition had lapsed and subsequently on the basis of the order dated 14th

July, 1987 of the Delhi Administration to the effect that "in future all lands

including lands acquired for non-plan purposes will be acquired through the

DDA" and "DDA will allot alternative plots against the acquired land".

However the said order dated 14th July, 1987 itself provided that the same

was only prospective and not retrospective. The petitioner however

represented that since his land had nevertheless been transferred to DDA for

planned development, he should be given the benefit of the order dated 14 th

July, 1987. However the said request of the petitioner was also rejected on

7th July, 1994. The writ petition was filed after twelve years from the said

date also.

13. The petitioner has also filed an application for filing additional

documents. The petitioner along with the said application has filed notings

from the files of the Land & Building Department indicating that the land

was transferred to the DDA for planned development after 14 th July, 1987

and in which notings some officials were of the view that the petitioner was

entitled to alternative allotment. The counsel for the petitioner on the basis

thereof has contended that since the land was transferred to the DDA post

order dated 14th July, 1987, even if the said order was to be not retrospective,

the petitioner would be covered by the said order.

14. However the fact remains that the rejection of the request of the

petitioner on this ground, was also communicated to the petitioner in the

year 1994 and the petitioner remained quiet for twelve years thereafter. The

petitioner did not show any haste in approaching this Court. The writ

petition in the light of the judgments aforesaid of the Division Bench of this

Court cannot be held to be maintainable and is held to be barred by laches.

15. Even though the aforesaid finding is sufficient for dismissal of the

writ petition but for complete adjudication it is deemed expedient to deal

with the case on merits. The counsel for the respondents has invited

attention to the judgment dated 4th September, 2008 of another Division

Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.2349/1988 titled Mehar Chand Vs.

Union of India which also though ultimately dismissed the writ petition for

alternative plot on the ground of laches, the delay in that case being of

thirteen years, but also discussed the law relating to alternative allotment.

The counsel for the respondents has urged that the DDA (Disposal of

Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 provide for allotment of alternative

plots to those whose land has been acquired. The Full Bench of this Court in

Ramanand Vs. UOI AIR 1994 Delhi 29 held that there was no absolute

right to allotment and there was merely a right to be considered for

allotment. It was also held that delay was a relevant factor. As per the

Policy of the year 1987 only those whose land was acquired for Planned

Development of Delhi and whose land was placed at the disposal of DDA

were entitled to be considered for allotment. The petitioner admittedly does

not meet the said criteria also. The subsequent vesting of the land in DDA

would not make any difference. No error is thus even otherwise found in the

decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

16. There is thus no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed.

Though the Single Judge against whose order intra Court appeal in Mange

Ram (supra) was preferred had imposed a cost of `1,00,000/- while

dismissing a similar writ petition, I refrain from imposing any costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 20th October, 2010 „bs‟.