Delhi High Court
Surender Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 September, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:16th September, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 3579/2014
SURENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. B.S. Mann, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: NEMO.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Adjournment slip has been circulated with no objection from the other
side.
2. Vide the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated
03.02.2014, whereby the representation of the petitioner has been rejected on
the ground that the said representation was filed beyond the period of
limitation of three months.
3. On perusal of the order dated 03.02.2014, it is revealed that the
compensation was received by the petitioner on 27.01.1986 and he applied
for the allotment of alternative plot vide his application dated 22.06.1987.
The said application was decided after a long gap of 22 years on the ground
of limitation.
4. 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".
5. 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."
6. The issue before this Court is similar. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 03.02.2014 is set aside. The respondent is directed to consider the
representation of the petitioner on merits.
7. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision taken by the
respondent, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
8. Accordingly, instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2014
jg
