Dal Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5390 Del

$~32 & 33
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                       Decided on: 22nd November, 2013
+      W.P.(C) 7310/2013
       DAL CHAND                                                        ..... Petitioner
                                 Through:      Mr. S.S. Panwar, Adv. with
                                               Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Adv.
                                 versus

       GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R-1, R-3 &
                                R-4.
                                Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi Adv. with
                                Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Adv. for R-2.
+      W.P.(C) 7311/2013
       SMT. RAMWATI & ORS.                                       ..... Petitioners
                    Through:                   Mr. S.S. Panwar, Adv. with
                                               Mr. Sunil Dutt Baloni, Adv.
                                 versus

       GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS.            ..... Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R-1, R-3 &
                                R-4.
                                Ms. Sangeeta Sondhi Adv. with
                                Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Adv. for R-2.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                          ORDER

22.11.2013

CM APPL.15724/2013 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 7310/2013 CM APPL.15727/2013 (exemption) in W.P.(C) 7311/2013

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7310/2013 and CM APPL.15725/2013 (stay)

1. By virtue of this writ petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing of the rejection letter dated 01.09.1999 whereby the request of the Petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot was rejected.

2. The Petitioner's land forming part of Khasra No.646, 506, 576, 644, 878, 1179/498, 504, 1257/502, 1186/498, 1257/502, 504, (62-17) & 866, 959, 931, 932, 944, 868, 988, 867, 730(24-2), situated in the revenue estate of village Kilokari, New Delhi was acquired in pursuance of the Notification under Section 4, dated 23.06.1989 and under Sections 6 and 17 dated 22.06.1990 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 27.12.1990 and further on 22.09.1995. According to the Petitioner, he was paid compensation in instalments from 06.06.1994 to 21.03.1997 and the last instalment of compensation amounting to Rs.22,019.49p was paid on 21.03.1997.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner urges that the Petitioner was the occupier as well as occupancy tenant of the land. The dispute with the owner of the land was settled and the last instalment of compensation was paid to the Petitioner on 21.03.1997.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the rejection of the Petitioner's request for allotment of an alternative plot simply on the ground that there was a delay in making the application for allotment was wholly unjustified. It is urged that before passing the order of rejection, the Petitioner was not issued any show cause notice and thus, the principles of natural justice were violated. To appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, it will be appropriate to extract the impugned letter dated 01.09.1999 hereunder:-

"To, Shri Dal Chand

S/o Sh. Shadi Ram H.No.128-C, Villaege Kilokari, New Delhi-110014

Sub: Allotment of alternative plot under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961.

Sir, With reference to your application dated 7.6.96 on the subject noted above, I am directed to inform you that as per the public notice dated 30th November, 1993 published in the newspapers, the individuals whose lands were acquired for planned development of Delhi after 31st December, 1988, were required to apply for allotment of alternative plots of land to this office by 31st January, 1994 or within one year from the competition of the acquisition proceedings whichever is later. As per your application you had received compensation on 13.7.94, hence the application for allotment of alternative plot should have been submitted latest by 12.7.95 whereas the same was submitted in this office on 7.6.96.

Your case has therefore been considered and rejected as being time barred.

This issues with the approval of the Secretary (Land)....."

5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that after the rejection of Petitioner's request for alternative allotment of a plot, the Petitioner moved an application under the RTI Act in December, 2008. By a reply dated 12.01.2009, the Public Information Officer of the Land & Building Department informed the Petitioner that his file was not traceable. The learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to the letter dated 31.03.2009 followed by legal notices dated 29.10.2010 and 13.06.2011 and letter dated 23.07.2012 to urge that the Respondent was not justified in denying the allotment of the alternative plot to the Petitioner. The learned counsel for the Petitioner refers to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Veerwati, 189 (2012) DLT 674 to contend that

the Petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of delay and laches.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate appearing on advance notice on behalf of the Land & Building Department urges that there was an unexplained delay of 14 years in filing of the present writ petition, as the rejection of the Petitioner's request was in the year 1999. The writ petition thus, cannot be entertained. In support of his contention, Mr. Yeeshu Jain heavily relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jagdish Singh, 192 (2012) DLT 368.

7. I have gone through the judgments cited at the Bar. In Veerwati, the Respondent was consistently pursuing her case with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Respondent Veerwati had produced the documents before the concerned officer/officers of the Delhi Administration from time to time, however, the Respondent (Veerwati) by a letter dated 09.12.1993 was informed about the closure of her case. Although, Veerwati disputed the receipt of this letter, yet it was a matter of record that she visited the office of the DDA on 10.12.1993 to find out about the progress of her case and when she was informed about the closure of her case due to non- submission of documents, she submitted the documents vide letter dated 27.12.1993. Thus, admittedly, within 20 days of the closure of the case, Respondent Veerwati challenged the closure and produced the relevant documents. Even thereafter, Veerwati continued to write various letters, which is borne out from Para 7 of the judgment. It was under these circumstances that the learned Single Judge held that the Respondent was not guilty of delay and laches, which order was upheld in the LPA in Veerwati (supra).

8. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the rejection letter dated 01.09.1999 was duly received by the Petitioner. The Petitioner woke up

only in December, 2008 (after more than 9 years of the receipt of rejection letter) and that too in the form of seeking some information under the RTI Act. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner was very much aware of the rejection of his case vide letter dated 01.09.1999. In these circumstances, it is evident that there was a delay of 14 years in approaching this Court, which is not permissible in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Singh. Paras 6 & 7 of the judgment are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

"6. We find force in this submission. We may point out that when the respondent received rejection letter dated 23.2.1999, he responded to the same vide his letter dated 14.7.1999 refuting the stand of the DDA by alleging that he had never received any letter qua the first allotment.

7. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent was ignorant. He was aware of his rights. In such circumstances, after receiving the rejection order in the year 1999, there was no reason for him to wait for an abnormal period of ten years before approaching the Court in the year 2009. We have to keep in mind that the purpose of the scheme for allotment of alternate plot is to give succour for those persons whose lands were acquired and on this deprivation; they become homeless or need house in this city. Such persons have to file appropriate application within time and it is also necessary for them to avail legal remedies without delay. Since we find that there is an inexplicable delay of more than ten years, that itself is sufficient to reject the petition of the appellant."

9. The Petitioner is thus guilty of inordinate delay and laches. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner cannot be entertained.

10. The writ petition stands dismissed in limine.

11. Pending application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7311/2013 and CM APPL.15728/2013 (stay)

12. In this case, the facts are similar except that the learned counsel for the Petitioners urges that the Petitioners were never aware of the rejection

letter dated 01.09.1999 as Late Shri Shiv Charan (Predecessor of the Petitioners) expired on 14.10.2001 and the Petitioners were not aware of the application submitted by him for allotment of an alternative plot or its rejection by the letter dated 01.09.1999.

13. With the help of the learned counsel for the Petitioners, I have gone through the averments made in the writ petition. The writ petition is completely silent that the Petitioners came to know about making of any application for allotment of an alternative plot and rejection thereof only in the year 2010. Rather, the Petitioners are quite categorical that the case of alternative allotment of plot in favour of Late Shri Shiv Charan was rejected vide letter dated 01.09.1999. A copy of the letter has been attached as well with the writ petition as Annexure P-7. It has further been stated in the writ petition that the earlier said Shiv Charan expired on 14.10.2001 and that after death of Late Shri Shiv Charan, the Petitioners never received any information or notice regarding the further progress of the case.

14. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners are contrary to the record and the averments made in the writ petition. The Petitioners have neither averred in the writ petition nor it is stated in any of the letters annexed (dated 29.10.2010, 06.04.2011 & 13.06.2011) that the Petitioners were not aware of submission of an application by Late Shri Shiv Charan for allotment of an alternative plot or it's rejection. Rather, from the legal notice dated 29.10.2010, it is clear that the Petitioners were very much aware of the submission of the application by Late Shri Shiv Charan vide Form No.1351 against acknowledgement dated 11.12.1996.

15. The Petitioners are thus guilty of inordinate delay and laches. The

reasons, which have been mentioned by me while dealing with W.P.(C). 7310/2013, clearly apply to this case. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Petitioners cannot be entertained.

16. The writ petition stands dismissed in limine.

17. Pending application also stands disposed of.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE NOVEMBER 22, 2013 vk