Delhi High Court
Shri Jai Bhagwan vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 23 August, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: August 23, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 8488/2018 & C.M. 32608/2018
SHRI JAI BHAGWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Advocate
Versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the first round of litigation, petitioner had challenged rejection
of application filed by Shiv Charan for allotment of alternate plot in lieu
of acquired land and the said writ petition was dismissed on 21st July,
2016 vide order Annexure P-10 while observing that Chhotu Ram, who
was entitled to apply for allotment of alternate plot, had not applied for
allotment and so, rejection of application of his son-Shiv Charan was
justified. Review sought by petitioner was not pressed with liberty to take
appropriate action, as advised in law.
2. Counsel for petitioner submits that review was sought on the
ground that from information received under Right to Information Act,
2005, petitioner had learnt that the application (AnnexureP-3) by Chhotu
Ram for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of acquired land, was filed way
back in March, 1982. It is a matter of record that possession of the subject
land was taken way back in the year 1987 and application filed by Shiv
Charan was dismissed because the entitlement to allotment of alternate
plot was of Chhotu Ram. Counsel for petitioner relies upon a Division
Bench decision in Trilok Chand Tyagi Vs. Delhi Development Authority
& ors. 68 (1997) DLT 544 (DB) to submit that Chhotu Ram's application
for allotment of alternate plot ought to be considered. Attention of this
Court is drawn to office noting (Annexure P-5) colly to submit that
Chhotu Ram's application for allotment of alternate plot was kept
pending in the year 1986 to await the outcome of pending litigation,
which was not initiated by said Chhotu Ram.
3. The opposition to this application by counsel for respondent is on
the ground that this petition is badly hit by delay and latches. It is pointed
out that records pertaining to application of Chhotu Ram are not
available.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order (Annexure P-1)
and the material on record, I find that though Chhotu Ram had applied for
allotment of alternate plot in the year 1982 and as per office noting, the
consideration of his application was deferred on 18 th January, 1986 to
await the outcome of pending litigation and as per the copy of certificate
of 1st October, 2007 on record, the possession of subject land stood
transferred to the concerned department. To say the least, Shiv Charan
was ill advised to file application for allotment of alternate plot, as the
application of the land owner only i.e. Chhotu Ram, whose land stood
acquired, was maintainable. By pursuing the application filed by Shiv
Charan, the right which was available to Chhotu Ram stands defeated as
as after an inordinate delay of more than three decades, it is unreasonable
to now call upon respondent to consider application of Chhotu Ram for
allotment of alternate plot. Supreme Court in Pepsu Road Transport Co.
Patiala vs. S.K. Sharma & Ors., (2016) 9 SCC 206 has reiterated that
denial of relief on the plea of delay and laches is justified in a case where
there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay occasioned. In the instant
case, inordinate delay is not explained. Since the records pertaining to the
application filed by Chhotu Ram are not available, reliance placed by
petitioner's counsel upon Division Bench decision in Trilok Chand Tyagi
(Supra) is misplaced, as in the said case, two applications were made by
same persons, whereas in the instant case, the second application has
been filed by son of Chhotu Ram, which was clearly not maintainable.
5. In the light of aforesaid, this petition and the application are
dismissed being hit by delay and laches.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 23, 2018
r
