Delhi High Court
Sudhir Udar vs Land & Building Department on 26 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 26th November, 2018
+ LPA 587/2016
SUDHIR UDAR
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Godara, Adv.
versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
1. This Intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant
challenging the order dated July 15, 2016 passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5399/2016, whereby the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition.
2. The facts as noted from the record are that, it was the case
of the appellant before the learned Single Judge that his land
measuring 8 Bighas and 4 Biswas was acquired vide Award
No.26/2002-2003 by the Land Acquisition Collector, South - West
District, Dwarka, New Delhi. On December 9, 2002,
compensation was received by him from the Department
amounting to ` 36,03,026/-. It was his case that on February 04,
2015 he had approached the respondent i.e. Land and Building
Department for accepting his application along with the requisite
documents for allotment of an alternate plot. However, his
application was not accepted.
3. The stand of the respondent before the learned Single Judge
was that there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the
appellant to approach the department for alternate plot as his land
was acquired way back in the year 2002 and also he had received
the compensation from the Land Acquisition Collector in the same
year. In substance, it is their case that after 13 years, the application
is not maintainable. Reliance was placed by the respondent on the
judgment of this Court in the cases reported as 86 (2000) DLT 505
titled as Smt. Sundari Bala Vs. Lt. Governor & Ors. and 192
(2012) DLT 368 titled as Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jagdish Singh.
4. The learned Single Judge had noted that in Smt. Sundari
Bala (supra) this Court has rejected a similar plea made by the
petitioner in that case after a period of 13 years.
5. The learned Single Judge noted that in Jagdish Singh
(supra), it was held that the purpose of a scheme of allotment of an
alternate house is to give succor for those persons, whose lands
were acquired and on this deprivation, they have become homeless
or need a house in the city. Such persons have to file an appropriate
application within time and to avail their legal remedy in the
absence of which no relief could be granted. The learned Single
Judge applying the ratio in both the cases, rejected the writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant made similar
arguments before us. His plea is also, the appellant could not make
the application for allotment because of ill health. We are not
impressed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellant. Firstly, the medical prescriptions annexed by the
appellant clearly suggest, the same are of Mrs. Nisha Udar, the wife
of the appellant of the year 2003. Even the prescriptions with
regard to the appellant, the same are of the years 2002, 2004, 2005
and 2007. There is no explanation for the period after 2007. Even
the prescriptions annexed by the appellant do not repose any
confidence. Further, such a case has not been set up before the
learned Single Judge. In the given facts, an application having been
made after 13 years, surely is, after much delay. The purpose of the
Scheme is to provide succor to a person, who has been made
landless, by allotting him an alternate plot. In the facts of this case,
we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was justified in
dismissing the writ petition.
7. The appeal is without any merit, the same is dismissed. No
costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 26, 2018/ak
