Sultan Singh (since deceased thr Lrs) v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors

1. The appellant’s grievance is that the writ petition was summarily rejected on the ground of laches. It is contended that the learned Single Judge overlooked the crucial and relevant facts pertaining to the recognition of the identical rights in favour of the other third party.

2. In view of the order, which this Court proposes to pass, a detailed discussion of the facts or the merits of the case is not required. It is however essential to recapitulate the bare essential facts that the appellant (since deceased), now 2018:DHC:2116-DB represented through the legal representatives, was the owner of 5 biswa land in Khasra No. 63, Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi. Concededly, the said land was deemed essential for a public purpose by the Gaon Sabha i.e. for construction of a road in the village. Alike late Sultan Singh, there were others, who owned lands in the village, which were also taken over by the Gaon Sabha contemporaneously, in view of the same resolution of

1976. These were lands belonging to three brothers i.e. Balbir Singh, Randhir Singh and Chand Rup. On 25.10.1985 the Gaon Sabha issued a resolution recommending that the land owners (the aggregate of whose lands measured 18 biswa and was used for construction of the village road) ought to be compensated with land. It recommended that each one of the land owners i.e. late Sultan Singh, the three brothers and the individuals concerned, be given 5 biswa each (aggregating 25 biswa). This resolution was approved by the Block Development Committee on 03.02.1992. Records also disclose that sometime in 1994, the appropriate Government i.e. the Government of NCT of Delhi acted upon the approved recommendations and, in fact, allotted 15 biswa (5 biswa each to the three brothers). The resolution dated 03.02.1992, for an inexplicable reason, however, did not specifically refer to late Sultan Singh or the other third party, whose lands were taken over for the construction of the village road. Consequently, these two individuals slipped between two stools as it were and neither the recommendations of the Gaon Sabha were approved or rejected nor were they given possession of any land.

3. Apparently, the three brothers (Balbir Singh, Randhir Singh and Chand Rup laid their claim to the unallotted land (i.e. the total 10 biswa of which the Gaon Sabha had recommended 5 biswa to be allotted to Mr. Sultan Singh and the balance to the other land owners). The rejection of their request led to filing of a writ petition, which was allowed. On this, the Government of NCT of Delhi approached this Court by way of Letter Patents Appeal (LPA No.18/2008), which was allowed on 20.03.2012. It is however a matter of record that the Government of NCT of Delhi in its application (CM No.13924/2009) had averred as follows:-

4. While allowing the Government of NCT of Delhi’s appeal the Division Bench observed as follows:-

5. The learned Single Judge in this case declined to interfere and issue the directions sought holding that the appellants had approached the Court after an inordinate and inexplicable delay. The learned Single Judge also suspected the bona fides of the litigation voicing the concern that a proxy case was being fought on behalf of the legal heirs of late Sultan Singh.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the materials on record and contended that none of the relevant decisions i.e. the Block Development Committee’s approving order dated 03.02.1992 or the Government of NCT of Delhi’s action in allotting 5 biswa each only to the three brothers can stand a scrutiny of fairness given that late Sultan Singh was displaced from his land and received no consideration in lieu of the sacrifice required of him. It was contended that the delay in approaching the Court cannot be the sole basis for endorsing the silence of the Government of NCT of Delhi which itself amounts to discrimination, especially when the Government of NCT of Delhi in its appeal had recognised the rights of late Sultan Singh.

7. Learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge and contended that the view expressed i.e. the appellants approached the Court in a highly belated manner and that in all probabilities this was proxy litigation, were reasons enough to reject their claim.