Ajit Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 4501 Del

$~13
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                       Judgment delivered on:16th September, 2014

+      W.P.(C) 2110/2014

AJIT SINGH                                                  ..... Petitioner
                                  Represented by: Mr. B.S. Mann, Adv.

                       Versus


GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                                    ..... Respondent
                                  Represented by: Mr. Puneet Aggarwal, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Present petition is directed against the impugned order dated 03.09.2013 whereby representation of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the application for alternative plot was filed beyond the prescribed limit of three months.

2. On perusal of the order dated 03.09.2013 it is revealed that land of the petitioner was acquired on 10.01.1986, 10.04.1986 and 22.06.1987 and the application for alternative plot was received on 14.01.1988, which was decided on 03.09.2013, i.e., after a long gap of 21 years. Thus, the respondent has no right to reject the application on the ground of limitation.

3. Similar issue came before this Court in the case of Simla Devi Vs. Secretary & Ors. 140(2007) DLT 474 wherein in Paragraph 3 facts of that case recorded as under:-

"3. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner received land acquisition compensation as determined by the land acquisition Award on 6.3.1997 and that she applied for allotment of alternative land on 1.7.1998. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.10.1999. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's application is that pursuant to a public notice stated to have been issued on 30.11.1993 in the newspaper individuals whose lands had been acquired after 31.12.1998 were required to apply for allotment of an alternative plot latest by 31.1.1994 of "within one year from completion of acquisition proceedings whichever is later." Since in the present case the petitioner received compensation on 6.3.1997, it is contended that the application for alternative allotment should have been submitted latest by 5.3.1998 whereas it was submitted on 1.7.1998. Therefore, the only reason for rejection of the petitioner's application for being considered for alternate allotment was that it was "time barred case".

4. This Court further held as under:

"5. This Court is of the view that the reason adduced by the respondent for not considering petitioner's application for allotment of an alternative plot is not tenable. Even earlier this Court had passed an order on 20.10.2003 directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application. Pursuant thereto the respondent rejected the said representation by the impugned order only on the ground that it was "time barred". The so-called public notice is neither a statutory notice nor is a gazetted noted which is presumed to have been known by everyone. On the contrary the notice was published, if at all, in the newspapers only once in 1993. In the circumstances, to contend that someone in 1997 applying for allotment of

alternative land should be presumed to know the time limit that is stipulated in a notice printed in the newspaper four years earlier is being unrealistic and impractical. There is nothing so immutable about the time limit set in the notice that the respondent should be precluded from considering an application which is delayed by about four month. Since this is a time limit set by the respondents themselves, surely in deserving cases like the present, where the applicant cannot be presumed to know of the time limit, such a delay ought to have been condoned. On the contrary thee refusal to condone the delay would result in injustice."

6. Admittedly, against the acquired land of the petitioner, he received compensation on 30.01.1990 and an application was moved in June, 1990, i.e., within six months of the compensation received.

7. In view of the facts of the case in hand and the afore-noted dictum of this Court, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 is hereby quashed.

8. Consequently, respondent department is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot within two months.

9. The decision of the respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner within 10 days thereafter."

5. The issue before this Court is similar. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.09.2013 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner on merits.

6. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision taken by the respondent, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

7. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2014 jg