JUDGMENT
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.
CM Nos. 6236-37/2007(exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 290/2007
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28th July, 2006 dismissing the writ petition which was filed by the appellant praying for quashing of the decision of the Land & Building Department dated 10.2.2003 whereby the request for allotment of an alternative plot to the appellant was rejected.
2. The appellant herein had earlier filed a writ petition No. 6205/1999 which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th August, 2002 with the following observations:
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that petition can be disposd of by setting aside letter Annexure-L dated 10.9.1984 conveying rejection of the application and further directing the respondents to consider afresh the application of the petitioner’s predecessor sympathetically made for allotment of alternative plot of land Along with the explanation for late submission which will be submitted by the petitioenrs within a period of six weeks from today….
3. The appellant herein relies upon the said order to explain the delay and laches. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Division Bench has condoned the delay and laches, if there be any, by passing the aforesaid order and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in rejecting the present writ petition on the said ground.
4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions, we have examined the records and on perusal thereof, we find that Shri Randhir Singh Sharma was the owner of the land which was acquired by the Land and Building Department. Award in respect of the said land was passed on 02.10.1961. Shri Randhir Singh Sharma applied for allotment of the alternative plot in the year 1979, i.e., after a period of 18 years from the date of the award. Shri Randhir Singh Sharma expired on 23.09.1982. The case of allotment of alternative plot was rejected by the respondent in the year 1984 on the ground of the application being barred by time as the cut of date for inviting applications was fixed as 15.12.1963.
5. So far the order of the Division Bench in CW No. 6205/1999 on which reliance is placed by the counsel appearing for the appellant is concerned, the same remanded the matter back for reconsideration. The said order did not condone the delay or hold that the appellant had explained the delay which was caused by the predecessor-in-interest Shri Randhir Singh Sharma. Award in respect of the acquired land was passed on 02.10.1961. Shri Randhir Singh Sharma applied for allotment of the alternative plot in the year 1979, i.e., after a period of 18 years from the date of the award. Shri Randhir Singh Sharma expired on 23.09.1982. The application was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Land & Building Department in the year 1984 on the ground that the same was time barred as the last date for submission of the application was 15.12.1963. There has been a substantial increase in land prices in Delhi between 1963 and 1979.
6. The appellant herein has sought to give an explanation which is also relied upon by the counsel appearing for the appellant. Learned Counsel has referred to para 8 of the representation which is as under:
That applicant No. 1 is an illitrate lady and between 1984 to 1999 several deaths took place in the family of the applicant No. 1 which took applicant No. 1 under depression and she could not take steps in time and Applicant No. 2 was minor at the time of the death of her father and at the time of the receiving of the refusal letter so she could not take action in time.
The said paragraph gives some explanation for the period 1984 to 1999, i.e., the period which was taken notice by the learned Division Bench in the earlier order. However, there is no explanation and justification from the cut of date for submission of application which was fixed as 15.12.1963 till 1999. The right to file an application for allotment was closed and expired on 15.12.1963. The delay of about 16 years had to be explained. The learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid facts and on consideration thereof has held after referring to the decision of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 29 that the appellants have no inherent or vested right to claim allotment of alternative lands outside the Scheme or independent of the Rules. The scheme prevalent also disentitles the appellant from getting an alternative plot after such a distant date.
7. In this connection we may also refer to the Division Bench decision of this Court in 6191/2000 titled as Shanti v. Lt. Governor NCT of Delhi and Ors. dated 26.03.2007 wherein on similar facts this Court has held thus:
…In some cases, in order to alleviate the hardship which follows the displacement of a person from his residential house and agricultural land, alternate allotments are carried out for residential accommodation. It is however not an absolute and vested right. After the passage of several decades this consideration would obviously have no relevance.
8. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions squarely applies to the facts of the present case. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed.