Rajasthan High Court

Jaipur Development Authority vs Ghasiram S/O Chuna on 20 May, 2022

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand

             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                         BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 41/2021

     Jaipur Development Authority, through its Secretary, Indra
     Circle, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur.
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                         Versus
     1.      Ghasiram S/o Chuna
     2.      Ramu S/o Munna
     3.      Kana S/o Munna
     4.      Bhagwana S/o Munna
     5.      Mooli widow of Prabhat
             All R/o Village Boytawala, Tehsil Jaipur, District Jaipur,
             Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Mehta, Sr. Adv.-cum- AAG with Mr. Yashodhar Pandey, Adv., Mr. Mehul Harkawat, Adv., Ms. Archana, Adv. & Mr. Abhishek Paliwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                      Judgment

     Reserved on                             :::                      May 6th 2022
     Pronounced on                           :::                      May 20th,2022
Reportable
(Per:Anoop Kumar Dhand,J.)
     1.         "Equals should          be     treated       equally     and   unequals
                unequally."
                                                                          -Aristotle

2. The most fundamental principle of justice which has

been widely accepted since it was defined by Aristotle more than

two thousand years ago. This principle says that "Individuals

(2 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are

relevant to the situation in which they are involved.

3. It is well settled principle of justice that equals cannot

be treated unequally and the unequals cannot be treated equally.

Treating of equals as unequals would offend the doctrine of

equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India

and that is the core issue involved in this appeal.

4. This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment

dated 28.09.2020 passed by learned Single Judge by which the

writ petition submitted by the appellant-Jaipur Development

Authority (for short 'JDA') assailing the legality of the judgment

dated 17.01.2018 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur, has been rejected.

5. Facts in brief of the case are that the land of the

respondents and others situated at Village Niwaroo Mansa

Rampura, Boyatawala and Benad was acquired by the State for

the purpose of Army for its 'Field Firing Range' under the

Rajasthan Land Acquisition Act, 1953 (for short 'the Act of 1953')

and a Notification under section 4 was issued on 8.5.1981. The

agricultural land measuring 1368 bigha 13 biswa was acquired in

the above revenue villages. After hearing the objections, the Land

Acquisition Officer passed an award on 26.03.1983 pertaining to

the land belonged to the respondents along-with other khatedars.

The possession of the land was taken and handed over to the

Military in lieu of monetary compensation. On 13.12.2001, the

Government of Rajasthan issued a Circular by which the State

offered 15% developed land to the persons whose land has been

acquired. For getting the 15% developed plot at Vidhyadhar

(3 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

Nagar, one Chhotu Ram and the respondents submitted an

application on 26.01.2002.

6. Without considering the application of Chhotu Ram and

the appellants for allotment of 15% developed plots at Vidhyadhar

Nagar, the JDA issued a notice on 17.05.2003 for auction of

certain lands at Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme for Group Housing

purpose. The said action of JDA was challenged by the said Chhotu

Ram before the JDA Tribunal for restraining JDA to auction these

lands. The JDA Tribunal allowed the appeal on 18.10.2005 and

quashed the auction notice and passed orders for allotment of

15% developed land at Vidhyadhar Nagar. Against the Judgment

of JDA Tribunal, the JDA submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.539/2009 but the same was dismissed on 11.01.2010. Against

which the JDA submitted D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.276/2010

and the same was allowed on 12.8.2011 and the Division Bench

quashed the judgment passed by the JDA Tribunal and the Single

Bench.

7. The Judgment dated 12.8.2011 of the Division Bench

was challenged by Lala Ram, Chhotu Ram and others before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by way of filing Civil Appeals

No.13940-13944/2015 and all these appeals were allowed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing and issuing the following

directions in para Nos. 153, 154, 155 as under:-

"153. In the overall view of the matter, we are of the confirmed opinion, that in the singular facts and circumstances of the case and for the sake of complete justice, the appellants are entitled to be allotted their quota of 15% developed land in the terms of policy/circular dated 13.12.2001 in one or more

(4 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

available plots at Vidyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal and Vaishali Nagar as enumerated by them in their affidavit dated 17.8.2015. The respondents are hereby directed to accommodate them accordingly.

154. In the wake up of above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set- aside. The respondents would allot the developed land as per policy decision dated 13.12.2001 to the appellants at the places indicated hereinabove without fail and within a period of six weeks herefrom. To secure a permanent resolution to the lingering lis, the respondents would ensure that a transparent and fair process is undertaken, if necessary, to be overseen by an appropriate authority to obviate any disparity in treatment in the matter of allotment as ordered.

155. We part with the belief and expectation that the respondents would be alive to their duty cast by law and would not precipitate any further cause of action necessitating the intervention of this Court with stringent initiatives. No costs."

8. In the light of the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the said Chhotu Ram was allotted 15% developed

land in proportion to his share of 12555.14 sq. mtrs. by the JDA.

On the basis of this Supreme Court judgment dated 01.12.2015,

the respondents Ghasi Ram, Ramu, Kana, Bhagwana and Mooli

Devi submitted application before JDA for allotment of 15%

developed land in the light of the Policy dated 13.12.2001 but the

JDA declined to allot the same to the respondents vide order dated

21.03.2017 that they have not challenged the order of JDA in

various proceedings carried out by Chhotu Ram and others and

the respondents were not party in the previous proceedings i.e.

Appeals, Writ Petitions, Special Appeals and Civil Appeals,

(5 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

therefore, they are not entitled to get 15% developed land at

Vidhyadhar Nagar etc.

9. The aforesaid order dated 21.03.2017 was challenged

by the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal, JDA with a

prayer to quash the same and issue directions for allotment of

15% developed land in any of the Schemes at Vidhyadhar Nagar,

Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal Nagar or Vaishali Nagar.

10. The JDA opposed the prayer of the respondents by

submitting reply. After hearing both sides, the Appellate Tribunal,

JDA allowed the appeal submitted by the respondents vide order

dated 17.01.2018 and held that the respondents are entitled to be

allotted 15% developed land in terms of the Policy/ Circular dated

13.12.2001 in any of the Schemes of JDA where plots are

available at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck Terminal Nagar,

or Vaishali Nagar.

11. Aggrieved by the order dated 17.1.2018 passed by the

Appellate Tribunal, the JDA submitted S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.9144/2018 before the Single Judge who dismissed the same

vide judgment/ order dated 28.09.2020 and directed the Appellate

Tribunal JDA to allot 15% developed land to the respondents in

terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case

of Lala Ram & Ors. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr.

(supra) in any of the above five schemes.

12. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned

judgment dated 28.9.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge,

the JDA has submitted this intra-court appeal.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

respondents cannot be allowed to raise their claims for getting

15% developed land at specific places after 12 years from the

(6 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

date of allotment made to them by the JDA at Village Lal

Chandpura and Anantpura. Such claim is highly belated and time

barred and suffers from laches.

14. Learned counsel further submitted that the judgment

dated 1.12.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

of Lala Ram (supra) was limited to the appellants in those Civil

Appeals No.13940-44/2015. Learned counsel submitted that

family settlement was arrived at between Munna, Chuna and

Hukma and as per this settlement all of them were having 1/3rd,

1/3rd share each in the land and out of which certain part of the

land was sold to one Ranveer Singh s/o Chanda Ram. Hence, the

respondents cannot be allowed to make any claim of the sold land.

Lastly, the counsel argued that the directions issued by the

Hon'ble Supreme in the case of Lala Ram (supra) are not

applicable upon the respondents.

15. Per-contra, the learned counsel for the respondents

opposed the arguments raised by the appellant and submitted that

as per the family settlement, Chhotu Ram was authorized to take

up the cause of the entire family with regard to the land acquired

by the JDA and for receiving the developed land. Counsel

submitted that in pursuance of the Circular dated 13.12.2001, the

respondents submitted their options on 15.1.2002 along-with the

said Chhotu Ram and the said Chhotu Ram has been allotted 15%

developed land after the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court.

Counsel further submitted that the lands offered at Lal Chandpura

and Anantpura are not fully developed lands and this fact has also

been noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.120 of the

judgment dated 01.12.2015. It was also submitted that the

respondents have not received any amount of compensation in

(7 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

lieu of their acquired land, hence they are also entitled to get 15%

developed land in any of the above 5 developed Schemes of JDA.

16. Learned counsel submitted that there was no delay on

the part of the respondents for getting their claim of 15%

developed land because they authorized the said Chhotu Ram to

raise their claims through the family settlement and Chhotu Ram

raised his issue before the JDA Tribunal and the JDA Tribunal

decided the issue in his favour. Thereafter, the JDA challenged the

said order of JDA Tribunal before the Single Bench of this Court by

way of filing writ petition and the same was dismissed. Thereafter,

JDA submitted Special Appeal which was allowed against which

Chhotu Ram, Lala Ram and others submitted Civil Appeals

No.13940-44/2015 and the same were allowed on 1.12.2015 and

the JDA was directed to allot the developed land to the appellants

therein as per the Policy Decision dated 13.12.2001. Counsel

submitted that as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the above case of Lala Ram (supra), the respondents were also

entitled to get 15% developed land to their respective share in the

acquired land. And the JDA was duty bound to allot the same to

the respondents but when no allotment was made, hence fresh

cause of action arose and the respondents approached the

Appellate Tribunal, JDA, who rightly allowed their appeal and there

was no illegality in the order dated 17.01.2018 that is why the

Single Judge has rejected the writ petition submitted by the JDA.

In support of his contentions, the counsel relied upon the para 7

of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Baljeet

Singh (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2019 (15) SCC 33.

(8 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

17. Lastly, the counsel submitted that no documentary

proof or copy of registered sale deed has been submitted by JDA

on the record to prove the allegations that some part of the land

was sold to one Ramdhan.

18. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

19. Perusal of the record indicates that 1366.13 biswa land

was acquired by the State of Rajasthan and in the light of the

Circular dated 13.12.2001 the persons whose land was acquired

were offered 15% developed land in various Schemes of JDA. And

the respondents were co-khatedars in the acquired land along-

with Chhotu Ram, Lala Ram etc. and all of them were holding their

joint share in 37 Bighas and 16 Biswa land in Khasra Nos. 2, 8,

10, 12 etc. and all of them submitted joint application on

15.01.2002 before the Deputy Commissioner, JDA, Jaipur for

getting 15% developed land at Vidhyadhar Nagar. This application

remained undecided. Then a family settlement arrived at between

these co-khatedars i.e. respondents on 25.10.2002 and they

authorized Chhotu Ram to litigate on behalf of all before the JDA

and Courts. Then Chhotu Ram initiated the proceedings for

getting 15% developed land before the authorities. In-stead of

allotting 15% developed land at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, the

JDA issued a notice on 17.05.2003 to auction certain developed

lands of Vidhyadhar Nagar Scheme for Group Housing purpose.

This action of JDA was put to challenge before the JDA Tribunal by

the said Chhotu Ram. JDA Tribunal quashed the auction notice

vide orders dated 18.8.2003 and 18.10.2005 and directed JDA to

allot land to him in the developed Scheme of JDA at Vidhyadhar

Nagar. The JDA assailed this order before the High Court by way of

filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.539/2009 but the said petition was

(9 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

dismissed on 11.01.2010. The aforesaid judgment of Single Bench

was assailed by JDA by submitting D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.276/2010 and on 12.08.2011, the Division Bench quashed not

only the order dated 11.01.2010 passed by the Single Judge but

also quashed the order passed by the JDA Tribunal. Thereafter,

Chhotu Ram, Lala Ram and others submitted Civil Appeals

No.13940-13944/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all

these appeals were allowed on 01.12.2015 and the Hon'ble Apex

Court held that they are entitled to be allotted their quota of 15%

developed land in terms of the Policy / Circular dated 13.12.2001

at the available land/plots in Vidhyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar, Truck

Terminal Nagar and Vaishali Nagar. It was also observed that the

JDA authorities would ensure that a transport and fair process is

undertaken, if necessary, to be overseen by an appropriate

authority to obviate any disparity in treatment in the matter of

allotment and in concluding para No.155 the Hon'ble Supreme

Court observed that "we part with the belief and expectation that

the respondents (i.e. JDA) would be alive to their duty cast by law

and would not precipitate any further cause of action necessitating

the intervention of this court with stringent initiations."

20. From a bare perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.13940-13944/2015, it is clear

that the Policy /Circular dated 13.12.2001 was affirmed. Even

then the JDA discriminated between the 'two-equals' i.e. Chhotu

Ram and others and the present respondents. The said Chhotu

Ram and others were allotted 15% developed land in pursuance of

the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but the

respondents were deprived. Such action of JDA is quite arbitrary

and against the principles of justice that "two equals cannot be

(10 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

treated uneuqally". Such impugned action of the JDA amounts to

violation of the fundamental rights of the respondents contained

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The JDA had no

authority to discriminate with the respondents who have

submitted their options with JDA and opted for 15% developed

land within the stipulated time fixed by JDA i.e. 15.1.2002. After

the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court there was no occasion available

with JDA to make the discrimination with the respondents. But

even then the JDA has made discrimination with respondents in

violation of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the last para of the judgment of Ghasi Ram (supra). The JDA has

violated the following directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

given in para 155 which reads thus:-

"155. We part with the belief and expectation that the Respondents would be alive to their duty cast by law and would not precipitate any further cause of action necessitating the intervention of this Court with stringent initiatives. No costs."

21. After the aforesaid observation, the Hon'ble Apex Court

fastened a duty upon the JDA to allot 15% developed land to the

respondents at its own end but again the JDA acted in an arbitrary

manner in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

and deprived the respondents for getting their rightful claim of

15% developed land in pursuance of the Policy /Circular dated

13.12.2001.

22. Concept of equality before the law and equal protection

of the laws emerges from the fundamental right expressed in

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Equality is a definite

(11 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

concept. The concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising

from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Those who

are similarly circumstanced are entitled for equal treatment.

Equality amongst equals. Classification is therefore to be founded

on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped

together from those left out of the groups and such differential

attributes must bear just and rational relation to the object sought

to be achieved.

23. The principle of "Equality amongst Equals" was decided

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Modified Voluntary

Retirement Scheme of 2002 of Azam Textile Mill Workers

Association Vs. National Textile Corporation Ltd., in Civil

Appeal No.6260-61/2021 decided on 26.10.2021 in para

Nos. 2.2, 7.1, 8, 9.3, 9.7, which reads as under:-

"2.2 That, after allotment, 11 Acres of the land owned by the NTC / Mill remained. It appears that thereafter KUDA submitted proposal to the State to allot house sites of 200 Sq. Yards each to 134 employees of the Mill, who continued to stay in their respective quarters despite service of notice dated 17.07.1986 demanding them to vacate the quarters. The State Government vide G.O. No.463 dated 27.06.2007, accepted the proposal of the KUDA to allot 200 Sq. Yards developed plot free of cost to each of 134 ex-employees of the erstwhile Mill, as a rehabilitation and welfare measure. That, thereafter, 318 retired workers who also took voluntary retirement along with other 134 workers made representation/s to allot to them also 200 Sq. Yards plot as allotted to other 134 workers out of the remaining land admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal directed the Tehsildar, Warangal to inquire about the land to an extent of Acres

(12 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

10.24 Gunthas situated at Laxmipura and Khila, Warangal. VRO of Laxmipura, Warangal submitted the report to the Tehsildar submitting that the land to extent of Acres 5 situated at Laxmipura village and the land to an extent of Acres 5.24 Gunthas situated at village Khila, Warangal total admeasuring Acres 10.24 Gunthas is in vacant possession and therefore, the said land is able to allocate house plots to members of Workers Association, who have been 318 employees, have not been allotted the house plots. Thereafter, nothing further was done to allot 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free of cost to the remaining 318 ex-

employees / workers of the Mill who also took voluntary retirement along with other 134 workers who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of developed plots each free of cost and therefore, the Workers Association filed the Writ Petition before the High Court being Writ Petition No.26642 of 2007. That, by a detailed and reasoned judgment and order the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition and directed the respondents to allot house sites of 200 Sq. Yards each to all the eligible 318 members of the Workers Association by observing that they are at par with other 134 ex-employees of the Mill, who were already allotted house sits of an extent of 200 Sq. Yards each as per the G.O. No.463 dated 26.07.2007.

7.1 The appellant Workers Association for and on behalf of 318 ex-employees of the respondent No.4 - Mills approached the High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed to allot them 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost at par with other 134 employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills.

It was the specific case on behalf of 318 ex-employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 that they are similarly situated with 134 ex-employees of erstwhile respondent No.4 inasmuch as both the classes (one class consisting

(13 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

of 318 employees and another class consisting of 134 employees) are similarly situated; the employees belonging to both the classes were the employees of the erstwhile respondent No.4 Mills; that all of them took the voluntary retirement under the Modified Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2002 together; all were similarly situated in granting the benefit of the modified voluntary scheme; all were allotted the quarters and were residing in the quarters. It was the case on behalf of the employees that the only difference was that as law abiding persons, they vacated the quarters after they were served with the notice dated 17.07.1986 to vacate the quarters and that those 134 ex-employees who as such were similarly situated did not vacate the quarters despite the notice dated 17.07.1986 and they remained in unauthorized occupation. It was also the case on behalf of 318 ex-employees that as per the G.O. No.463, all those 134 ex-employees were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to avoid undue hardship to the ex- employees and as a welfare measure. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to treat all those 318 ex-employees at par with 134 ex-employees who were allotted 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost and to allot them accordingly by observing that not allotting similar 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to remaining employees - 318 ex- employees is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Division Bench of the High Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the present Appeals.

8. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is, whether the remaining 318 ex-employees of the respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) can claim the parity and equality vis-a-vis other similarly situated 134 ex-employees of the

(14 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

respondent No.4 Mills (erstwhile) and can claim 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost?

9.3 .....In a given case Article 14 of the Constitution may permit a valid classification. However, a classification to be followed must necessarily satisfy two tests. Firstly, the distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons from another must have a reasonable nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. In the present case allotment of 200 Sq.Yards free of cost to 134 employees was to avoid undue hardship to the ex- employees and as a welfare measure. As observed hereinabove those 318 ex- employees who are denied the benefit of allotment of 200 Sq.Yards of plots free of cost are similarly placed persons with that of 134 employees who are allotted 200 Sq.Yards plots free of cost. There is no rationale justification in providing differential treatment to one class of ex-employees similarly placed with another class of ex- employees who are allotted the plots. 9.7 Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the respondents that they do not have any sufficient land at present to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to remaining 318 ex-employees and that all those 318 ex-employees vacated the quarters voluntarily and they settled in their houses is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that merely because for whatever reason and even as a law abiding person they vacated the quarters, they cannot be put to disadvantageous situation being a law abiding persons. Even it cannot be presumed that all those 318 ex-employees who vacated the quarters and stayed elsewhere were settled. It cannot be presumed like that without any factual data. There may be many ex-employees who were compelled to vacate the quarters and who might not have settled or might be staying in a one room house. In any case, to allot 200 Sq. Yards of plots to 134 ex-employees to avoid undue

(15 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

hardship to the ex-employees and as a welfare measure and as a rehabilitation to only 134 case ex- employees and not other ex-employees similarly situated, would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. As observed hereinabove, on the contrary, to allot the plots to 134 employees on the ground that they were in unauthorized occupation and therefore, to avoid the litigation / litigation cost would be giving a premium to those who continued to be in illegal unauthorized occupation and to punish those ex- employees who were found to be law abiding and vacated the quarters pursuant to the notice dated 17.07.1986. Even the justification to differentiate the case between two classes of ex-employees is not germane. If remaining 318 ex-employees would not have vacated the quarters and would have remained in unauthorized occupation, even as per the case on behalf of the respondents is accepted, then those who remained in unauthorized occupation subsequently might have been allotted to 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost like 134 ex-employees who were found to be in unauthorized occupation. Therefore, as such there is no justification at all to deny allotment of 200 Sq. Yards of plots free of cost to each of 318 ex-employees, which were allotted to other 134 ex-employees who otherwise were similarly situated. It will be open for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to approach the respondent No.1 and/or the State Government for allotment of additional land and/or to allot the plots from the remaining land of the respondent No.4 Mills which might be vacant and available with the Central Government / NTC as the case may be."

24. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the instant

case there is no rational justification in providing differential

treatment to one class of respondents who are similarly placed

(16 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

with another class i.e. Chhotu Ram and others who have been

allotted 15% developed lands as per the directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Lala Ram (supra).

25. There is no force in the argument of the JDA that

certain part of the land was sold to one Ranveer Singh because

neither any document related to sale has been produced on the

record nor so-called Ranveer Singh has approached the authorities

to get any compensation or developed land in lieu of the acquired

land.

26. Now the question arises that 'Whether the claim raised

by the respondents for getting 15% developed land is belated and

Whether it suffers from any delay and laches ?

27. There is no delay in raising the claim by the

respondents for getting 15% developed land. Immediately after

the Circular dated 13.12.2001, the respondents submitted their

options with Chhotu Ram s/o Sunaram on 15.1.2002 i.e. within

the time line fixed by the authorities and on 25.10.2002 they

executed a family settlement deed and authorized Chhotu Ram to

litigate on behalf of everyone. And thereafter the proceedings

were initiated by Chhotu Ram before the authorities and the same

attained finality before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The cause raised

by Chhotu Ram for getting 15% developed land was common.

When Chhotu Ram got the 15% developed land and the

respondents were deprived, then they had no option except to

knock the doors of the Appellate Tribunal, JDA, who rightly

allowed their appeals and directed JDA to allot 15% developed

land to them in terms of the Policy/ Circular dated 13.12.2001 in

one or more available plots at Vidhyadhar Nagar, Gokul Nagar,

Truck Terminal Nagar and Vaishali Nagar Scheme.

(17 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

28. The similar issue of delay and laches in such like

matters has been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Baljeet Singh (supra) in para No.7 as under:-

"7. The matter requires examination from another aspect viz. laches and delay. It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is non-existent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. 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. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. 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

(18 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

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."

29. The case of the respondents and the said Chhotu Ram

was identical and similar as all of them submitted common options

for getting the 15% developed land. Then there was no occasion

available with the Appellate Tribunal, JDA to take a different stand

i.e. allotment of 15% developed land to Chhotu Ram at

Vidhyadhar Nagar and not to allot the similar set of land to the

respondents. On the ground of parity the Honb'le Supreme Court

has settled the following principle in para No.10 of Ningappa

Thotappa Angadi Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer in

Civil Appeal No.9415/2019, as under:-

"10. It is undeniable that this Court vide judgment dated November 11, 2016 passed in C.A. No. 2927/2010 (Ningappa Thotappa Angadi v. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.) has set aside the order of the High Court and restored the compensation as was awarded by the Reference Court. In the cited case, this Court held as follows:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties to some length and carefully perused the material on record. We are of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and order

(19 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

of the High Court deserves to be set aside and judgment and order passed by the Reference Court restored. We say so because, this Court has in a similar appeal directed against the very same order set aside the impugned judgment and restored the enhancement granted by the Reference Court. We see no reason to take a different view in the present case. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and while setting aside the impugned judgment insofar as the same relates to the appellant, restore the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs."

30. In catena of judgments the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held that when a particular set of persons are given a benefit, all

other similarly situated persons are to be treated alike. Merely

because they did not approach the Court earlier, they would not be

treated differently than the rests.

31. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind

Kumar Srivastava, Civil Appeal No.9849/2014, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held in para 23 as under:-

"23. .....The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:

(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be

(20 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.

(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.

(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment,

(21 of 22) [SAW-41/2021]

those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence."

32. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the

respondents cannot be treated as 'fence-sitter' because they

submitted their options for getting 15% developed land within the

time line prescribed by the authorities in pursuance of the

Policy/Circular dated 13.12.2001 and they authorized the said

Chhotu Ram to take their cause in relation to the land in question

by executing the agreement. The respondents were waiting for the

outcome of the proceedings initiated by Chhotu Ram. When the

authorities allotted the 15% developed land to Chhotu Ram in the

desired Scheme and when the respondents were deprived, then

they had no other option except to approach the JDA Tribunal who

heard their voice and redressed their grievance and gave the