Shri Dal Chand vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3633 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 11th August, 2014

+       LPA No.227/2014 & CM No.4515/2014 (for interim directions).

       SMT RAMWATI & ORS.                                ..... Appellants
                   Through:          Mr. S. S. Panwar with Mr. Nivedita
                                     Panwar, Advs.

                             Versus
       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                 ...Respondents

                    Through:    Mr. B. Mahapatra, Adv.

                                    AND

+      LPA No.228/2014 & CM No.4529/2014 (for filing additional
       documents) and CM No.4530/2014 (for stay).
       SHRI DAL CHAND                                     ..... Appellant
                    Through:         Mr. S. S. Panwar with Mr. Nivedita
                                     Panwar, Advs.

                          Versus
    GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.                 ...Respondents
                 Through:    Mr. B. Mahapatra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. These intra-court appeals impugn the common order dated 22nd

November, 2013 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of W.P.(C)

No.7311/2013 & W.P.(C) No.7310/2013 filed by the appellants respectively on

account of inordinate delay and laches.

2. The land of the appellant in LPA No.228/2014 was acquired vide Land

Acquisition Award No.14/1992-1993 pursuant to Notifications dated 23rd June,

1989 and 22nd June, 1990 under Section 4 and under Sections 6&17

respectively of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Possession of the said land

was taken on 27th December, 1990 and 22nd September, 1995 and last

installment of compensation was received by the appellant on 19 th March, 1996.

The appellant on 7th June, 1996 applied under the Scheme dated 2nd May, 1961

of the Government for allotment of alternative plot. However the said

application was rejected vide letter dated 1st September, 1999 on the ground

that the application for alternative plot should have been submitted latest by

12th July, 1995 while it was submitted on 7th June, 1996. The appellant claims

to have, after nearly ten years, filed an application dated 17th December, 2008

under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter claims to have issued

legal notices dated 29th October, 2010, 13th July, 2011 and 1st November, 2012

and thereafter in or about October, 2013 filed the writ petition from which this

LPA No.228/2014 arises, impugning the letter dated 1st September, 1999

rejecting his request for alternative plot and seeking a direction to the

respondents to process his case for allotment of alternative plot and to allot

alternative plot to the appellant.

3. The counsel for the respondents appearing on advance notice, opposed

the writ petition from which LPA No.228/2014 arises contending that there was

an unexplained delay of 14 years in filing the writ petition impugning the

rejection dated 1st September, 1999.

4. The learned Single Judge, observing that it was not in dispute that the

appellant in LPA No.228/2014 was aware of the rejection of his case vide letter

dated 1st September, 1999 and that there was thus a delay of 14 years in

approaching the Court and relying on Government of NCT of Delhi Vs.

Jagdish Singh192 (2012) DLT 368 dismissed the writ petition as aforesaid.

5. The land of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants in LPA

No.227/2014 was also acquired by the same Award and Notification and their

predecessor applied for alternative plot on 11th December, 1996 and which

request was rejected, also vide letter dated 1st September, 1999 on the ground

that the application for alternative plot should have been submitted latest by

18th October, 1996 but had been submitted on 13 th December, 1996. The

predecessor of the appellants died on 14th October, 2001. The appellants, after

issuing notices dated 29th October, 2010, 6th April, 2011, 13th June, 2011 filed

the writ petition from which this appeal arises in or about October, 2013 with

the same reliefs as in the other writ petition.

6. Before the learned Judge, the appellants in LPA No.227/2014 contended

that the appellants / writ petitioners were never aware of the rejection letter

dated 1st September, 1999 as their predecessor died on 14th October, 2001. The

learned Single Judge however, after perusing the pleadings in the writ petition

and finding that it was nowhere the plea of the appellants / writ petitioners that

the letter dated 1st September, 1999 was not served on their predecessor and / or

that the appellants / writ petitioners had become aware of the rejection for the

first time only in the year 2010 and holding that an argument contrary to the

pleadings could not be accepted, dismissed the said writ petition, also finding

the appellants / writ petitioners to be guilty of inordinate delay and laches.

7. The appellants got notice of LPA No.227/2014 issued by raising a

argument that the computation of the last date of filing of the application for

alternative plot by the respondents was erroneous when the reason why the

learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition from which LPA No.227/2014

arises was not of the said computation but of inordinate delay after 1st

September, 1999 in approaching the Court.

8. On the basis of issuance of notice in LPA No.227/2014, notice was also

got issued in LPA No.228/2014.

9. We may at the outset observe that such practice of misrepresenting

before this Court has but to be deprecated. The Courts presume at least the

Advocates to be making an honest representation and we find the counsel for

the appellants in LPA No.227/2014 to have got the notice thereof issued by

misrepresenting that the computation of the last date for making the application

for alternative plot by the learned Single Judge was erroneous when the learned

Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition from which the said LPA arises on

the ground of delay and laches.

10. Be that as it may, the counsel for the appellants / writ petitioners again

before us contended that the appellants / writ petitioners in neither of the two

cases were aware of the rejection of their request for alternative plot vide letters

dated 1st September, 1999.

11. We have again carefully perused the pleadings in the writ petitions and

do not find the appellants / writ petitioners to have approached the Court with

such a case; rather they categorically pleaded the letter dated 1st September,

1999 in the chronology of events. In fact, as far as LPA No.228/2014 is

concerned the learned Single Judge has observed that "it is not in dispute that

the petitioner was very much aware of the rejection of his case vide letter dated

01. 09.1999". The order appears to have been dictated in open Court and if

there was no such admission the counsel ought to have objected immediately.

Even if there was any error in listening, application in this regard should have

been made before the learned Single Judge and which admittedly has not been

done and rightly so because it is nowhere pleaded in the writ petition that the

appellant / writ petitioner was not aware of the rejection vide the letter of 1st

September, 1999.

12. Thus, on the basis of the pleadings, the petitions filed in or about

October, 2013 impugning the rejection letters dated 1st September, 1999 were

rightly held to be not maintainable and to be barred by laches and acquiescence

and waiver and the subject matter thereof having become stale.

13. We may also notice that even it is to be believed that the appellants / writ

petitioners became aware only in the year 2010 of rejection of their request for

alternative plot, there was a delay of nearly three years therefrom also in filing

the petitions.

14. It has been held in Leelu Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/2162/2013 and

in Shri Sunder Singh Vs. Union of India MANU/DE/1872/2008 that there is

an element of urgency and rehabilitation in the scheme for allotment of

alternative plots and which allotment in any case is not a matter of right [See i)

Ramanand Vs. Union of India AIR 1994 Delhi 29 (FB), ii) Chander Vs. Delhi

Administration 91 (2001) DLT 121 (DB), and iii) Dewan Singh Vs.

Government of Delhi AIR 2011 Delhi 76 (FB)]. The delay from 1999 till 2013

in impugning the rejection of the request for alternative plot is clearly

indicative of the appellants / writ petitioners being not in need of such a plot

and the writ petitions and these appeals have been filed by way of a wager.

15. There is no merit in the appeals which are dismissed. We further impose

costs of Rs.5,000/-, on the appellants / writ petitioners in each of the appeals,

payable to the respondents.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

AUGUST 11, 2014 pp