Om Prakash Chauhan (Since ... vs Union Of India & Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 1246 Del

    * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
    %                      Date of decision: 25th February, 2019
+    LPA 219/2017, CM No. 12739/2017

     OM PRAKASH CHAUHAN (SINCE DECEASED)
     THR LRS                                 ..... Appellant
                 Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.
                          Amanullah, Ms. Shabeena Anjum and
                          Mr. M.B. Tariq, Advs.

              versus
     UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               ..... Respondents
                     Through:         Mr. Arjun Pant, Adv. for DDA
                                      Mr. Yeeshu Jain, SC for L&B/GNCTD
                                      with Mr. Biraja Mahpatra & Ms. Jyoti
                                      Tyagi, Advs.
     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 appellants, the

legal heirs of Om Prakash Chauhan, the writ petitioner before the

learned Single Judge. The challenge in the writ petition was to a letter

dated 11th October 1998 and subsequent communication dated 22 nd

April, 2004.

2. Suffice it to state that vide the communication dated 11th

October, 1998, the request of the appellant for alternate allotment of plot

was rejected and vide the second communication dated 22 nd April, 2004,

his request for re-opening of his case was also rejected.

3. Some of the facts as noted from the record are the predecessor-in

interest of Late Om Prakash Chauhan was the owner of 25 Bigha and 8

Biswas of land falling in the Revenue Estate of Village-Jasola, Delhi.

The said land was acquired pursuant to a notification dated 17 th

December, 1966. The Predecessor-in-Interest of Late Om Prakash

Chauhan expired on 25th June, 1986. He left behind Om Prakash

Chauhan and his five sisters as his legal heirs. Late Om Prakash

Chauhan received compensation for the acquired land of his father on

29th January, 1987. An application seeking allotment of alternate plot

was made on 28th September, 1987 which was admittedly within time.

Required documents were asked for vide letter dated 10 th February,

1997. It is noted by the learned Single Judge that these documents were

submitted in the year 2004. Thereafter late Om Prakash Chauhan wrote

letters to the Department asking them about the status of his case, but he

was never informed about the same. He filed a writ petition being

W.P.(C)10802/2005, which was dismissed on 29 th October, 2013. An

Intra-Court Appeal being LPA 97/2014 was filed by Om Prakash

Chauhan. The said LPA was disposed of by the Division Bench giving

liberty to late Om Prakash Chauhan to get his case re-opened from the

Department, but at the same time noted that the three letters being 17th

December, 1991, 30th February, 1991 and 23rd December, 1992 would

be read in favour of the department. It appears that on the basis of the

said liberty granted by the Division Bench, late Om Prakash Chauhan

filed the writ petition wherein the impugned order has been passed.

4. It was represented before the learned Single Judge that when the

Department itself has written a letter to him in the year 1997 asking him

to submit the documents qua death of his father and details of legal

heirs, which he has submitted, his case could not have been rejected. It

is seen from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has noted

that on a specific query to the counsel for the late Om Prakash Chauhan

that pursuant to letter dated 10th February, 1997 when did Om Prakash

Chauhan submitted the documents, no reply could be given. Thus on

the basis of the aforesaid facts, learned Single Judge opined that late Om

Prakash Chauhan remained silent and had slumbered over his right and

as such his case cannot be sympathetically considered as the policy of

the Government was to give alternate plots, but to persons who had

become homeless or landless on the acquisition of the entire land.

5. Mr. Kirti Uppal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant

has contended that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the

counsel for late Om Prakash Chauhan on being put a question that when

did he submitted the documents asked for vide letter dated 10 th

February, 1997, he had not answered is because the counsel could not

understand the purport of the question. According to him, in fact late

Om Prakash Chauhan had submitted the documents immediately in the

year 1997. He has drawn our attention to Pages 60 onwards of the paper

book. According to him, if late Om Prakash Chauhan had submitted all

the documents as sought for, there was no reason for the respondents to

sit over the matter and not to decide the case either way. According to

him, noting dated 22nd February, 2004, wherein the case has been closed

by stating that "there is no change in the status of the case" is totally

misconceived.

6. Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, learned Counsel appearing for the

respondent / L&B would state that even otherwise, assuming late Om

Prakash Chauhand had submitted the documents in the year 1997, there

was no reason for him to file the writ petition in the year 2005. Hence,

the writ petition was barred by delay and laches.

7. We are not in agreement with this submission made by

Mr. Mahapatra. Suffice it to state, documents as sought for by the

respondents vide letter dated 10th February, 1997 have been submitted

by late Om Prakash Chauhan immediately thereafter, there was no

reason for the respondents to sit over the matter and not decide the

application filed by him and they could not have closed his case by

stating that "there is no change in the status of the case". Further, the

writ petition was filed pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court.

8. We accordingly hold that the learned Single Judge could not

have dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that late Om Prakash

Chauhan had not submitted the documents and he remained silent and

had slumbered over his right. The impugned order is accordingly set

aside. The appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the

learned Single Judge for a decision on merit with regard to the claim of

the appellants in the writ petition.

CM No. 12739/2017 Dismissed as infructuous.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 25, 2019/jg