Delhi High Court
Mohd Suleman vs Ndmc & Ors. on 18 January, 2022
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18th January, 2022
+ LPA 48/2022
MOHD SULEMAN ..... Appellant
Through Mr. R.P.S. Sirohi, Advocate.
versus
NDMC & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Standing
Counsel for R-1.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing Counsel for
R-2/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.
CM APPL. 3051/2022 (Exemption) & CM APPL. 3052/2022 (Exemption
to file lengthy list of dates)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 48/2022
1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment dated
07.12.2021, passed by the Learned Single Judge in writ petition being
W.P. (C) 13910/2021, the Appellant (Original Petitioner) has preferred the
present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant
and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:19.01.2022
17:54:21
3. The case of the Appellant is that he had constructed a shop in Meena
Bazar, opposite Jama Masjid, Delhi in the year 1971 and had paid damages
to DDA upto the year 1975. Between the period from 1975 to 1976, a
demolition drive was conducted, during which the shop of the Appellant
was demolished but he was not allotted any alternative shop. The
contention of the Appellant is that on 11.10.1977, DDA framed a policy for
allotment of alternative place or shops to Motia Khan Steel Merchants, who
were evicted from Motia Khan area as their shops were demolished during
the same demolition drive.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the writ petition was
filed before the Learned Single Judge, seeking a limited relief of a direction
to Respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the Appellant dated
11.10.2019 and take a decision thereon, within a time bound manner.
Learned Single Judge has erred in not granting the said relief and has
erroneously dismissed the writ petition as being barred by delay and laches.
It was the case of the Appellant before the Learned Single Judge that
Respondents never responded to his representations over the years and
therefore, the petition was not barred by delay.
5. Having perused the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by the
Learned Single Judge in writ petition being W.P. (C) 13910/2021
(Annexure A-1 to the memo of the Appeal), we see no reason to entertain
the present Appeal, for the following reasons:-
(i) The shop in question was admittedly demolished in the year
1975 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2021, which is
after a period of over 46 years. There is no explanation
forthcoming in the writ petition or before this Court as to why
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:19.01.2022
17:54:21
the Appellant waited for nearly 5 decades to approach the
Court except for a bald assertion that his several
representations were pending with the DDA and his matter for
allotment of alternative shop/site was under consideration. The
writ petition was thus, clearly barred by delay and laches.
(ii) Insofar as the argument of the Appellant that he has been
making several representations which, according to him, are
pending with the DDA, is concerned, the Learned Single Judge
has noted that as far back as on 02.06.2010 Respondent No.1
had informed the Appellant that the matter had been
considered by the competent authority and there was no scope
for new entrants in the existing plan and thus, the request of
the Appellant for alternative site, in lieu of the demolished
shop, could not be acceded to. The letter dated 02.06.2010 is
on record, appended as Annexure P-21 to this Appeal and has
been independently perused by us. We find no infirmity in the
finding of the Learned Single Judge that way-back in 2010
vide letter dated 02.06.2010, Appellant was duly informed that
he was not eligible for an alternative shop/site. It cannot thus
be contended by the Appellant that his representations had
been pending over the years with no response from the
departments concerned.
(iii) Even assuming for the sake of argument that the representation
was wrongly rejected by Respondent No.1, cause of action, if
any, had arisen in favour of the Appellant in the year 2010.
Even thereafter, the Appellant waited for 11 years before filing
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:19.01.2022
17:54:21
the writ petition and has been unable to satisfactorily explain
as to what prevented the Appellant from filing a writ petition
soon after the representation was rejected.
(iv) As far as the prayer in the writ petition for a direction to
dispose of the representation dated 11.10.2019 is concerned, in
our view, the Learned Single Judge has rightly noted that
though seemingly, it is an innocuous prayer but clearly it is an
attempt on the part of the Appellant to create a fresh cause of
action in order to overcome the delay and laches and cannot be
countenanced. It is a settled law that repeated representation
does not extend limitation nor can be a ground to plead a fresh
cause of action so as to overcome delay and laches which in
this case is 46 years from the date the shop was demolished
and over 11 years from the rejection of representation, with not
an iota of explanation enabling this Court to condone the
delay.
6. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and are in
complete agreement with the findings of the Learned Single Judge,
dismissing the writ petition.
7. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
JANUARY 18, 2022/rk
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:19.01.2022
17:54:21
