TULSIBAJAJ v. Union of India

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed tosee the judgment? / O

2. To be referred to theReporter or not? "

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1. The prayer in this petition is for a direction to the Respondent to allot a land in lieu of land allotted to the grandfather of the Petitioner in Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi way back in 1962, but it was not handed over in view of the encroachment thereon.

2. It is stated that Shri Inder Bhan was the uncle of the father of the 2010:DHC:12126 Petitioner. He migrated from Pakistan during partition. A land in Khasra Nos. 22/3, 22/8, 23/6, 23/15 and 23/16 in the revenue Estate of Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi was allotted to him as evacuee property.

3. Before the possession of the land in question could be handed over to him, Shri Inder Bhan died. After his death, there was a dispute concerning the succession to his estate. This continued till 1984. An order was passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the year 1984 under which the Petitioner's father, Shri Ram Lai, was held to be entitled to the estate of Shri Inder Bhan in terms of the Will executed by Shri Inder Bhan. Sanad was also ordered to be issued in the name ofthe father ofthe Petitioner. On 4^*^ April 1989, mutation of the land in question, in the name of the Petitioner's father, was also sanctioned.

4. The case of the Petitioner is that thereafter when the Petitioner's father and he went to inspect the land it was found to be encroached upon. It is stated that the Petitioner's father kept writing to the authorities for removal of the encroachment but nothing was done. The Petitioner's father died on 13"^ July 2007. Thereafter the present writ petition has been filed. maintainability of the petition on the ground of laches. It is pointed out that although Shri Inder Bhan's claim was verified and determined on 14^^ December 1966, there was no action taken thereafter for almost 17 years. The Sanad was issued on 21®^ August 1984 in name of the Petitioner's father. Again, there was no action till the next representation was made on 12^^ February 1987. Mutation was granted on 5^*^ April 1989. For another 18 years till 26^*^ April 2007 the authorities were not approached. It is stated that in the case of evacuee property like that of Shri Inder Bhan possession is normally handed over at the time of issuance of Sanad which in this case was on 21®' August 1984. Therefore, the encroachment, if any, is the creation of the predecessors ofthe Petitioner. The records themselves are very old and would not be traceable.

6. Along with the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner has enclosed copies of the visitor's passes issued to the Petitioner's father in the years 1981, 1982, 1984 and in 1991. It is sought to be urged that this is proof of the Petitioner's father having been pursued the matter with the authorities. Reference is made to the copies of Khasra Girdhawari of the Village Jharoda Majra Burari which shows the name of the owner as Inder Bhan. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments in Delhi Rohtas Light Railway Compfiny Limited v. District Board Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCR 155j )3). and Ram Chand v. Union ofIndia (1994) 1 SCC 44 to urge that the ! I delay and laches ought to be condoned in the facts and circumstances I I of the case.

7. The burden in the instant case is on the Petitioner to explain the laches in following up the matter with the authorities and is approaching this Court for relief There is no document to show that any representation was made in all these years by the Petitioner's m predecessors seeking possession of the plot in question. The fact of the matter is that the Sanad was issued in August 1984, the mutation was effected on 4^*^ April 1989 and the present petition has been filed only in December 2007.

8. This Court finds that the decisions relied upon by counsel for the Petitioner turned on their own facts and do not help the case of the Petitioner.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is dismissed.

FEBRUARY 23,2010 rk

S. MURALIDHAR, J.