Delhi High Court
Sushil Jindal vs Land & Building Department on 4 September, 2019
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 4th September, 2019
+ LPA 294/2019
SUSHIL JINDAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr. Paramveer
Dalal and Mr. D.P. Singh,
Advs.
Versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Attendance slip not given
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
ORDER
% 04.09.2019
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 20744/2019(DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING LPA)
For the reasons stated in the application, 14 days delay in filing
the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Application is allowed and
disposed of.
LPA 294/2019
1, This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant
(original petitioner), whose WP(C) No. 2538/2019 was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 13 th March,
2019.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant (original
petitioner) and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it
appears that the appellant seeks allotment of the alternative residential
plot in lieu of the land acquired from the appellant.
3. Application for allotment of the alternative residential plot was
filed by the appellant on 24th April, 1989 and the writ petition being
W.P.(C) 2538/2019 was preferred in the year 2019. There was an
inordinate delay of about 30 years in filing the writ petition. On the
grounds of delay and latches, the said writ petition was dismissed by
the learned Single Judge.
4. In Baljeet Singh(Dead) through Lrs. And ors v. State of U.P.
(MANU/SCOR/23812/2019), where there was a delay of about 21
years in preferring a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, the three judge bench of the Hon'ble court, through
Justice M.R. Shah, held thus:
"8. ...... In those cases, where the period of limitation is
prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the
court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period,
the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal
right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to
the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable
explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period
of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court
may condone the delay ...... It is not that in each and every
case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is
not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To
make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to
make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in
initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation.
Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the
aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the
period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be
denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay
and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or
acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the
principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does
not exercise his right for a long time then such right is
non-existent."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. In view of these facts, and the rationale in Baljeet Singh
(supra) and also looking to the fact that the appellant has failed to put
forth, any reasonable explanation, whatsoever, for the inordinate delay
and latches of 30 long years in filing the writ petition, We find that no
error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing
W.P.(C) No. 2535/2019 vide judgement and order dated 13 th March,
2019. Hence, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. We
are in full agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single
Judge.
5. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 04, 2019
r.bararia
