Dayachand v. Union of India

1. The present two appeals have been filed assailing the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 01/09/2015 passed in W.P.(0)7889/2011 and LPA 271/2016& 393/2016 Page 1 of[6] 2016:DHC:8767-DB order dated 23/11/2015 passed in W.P.(C) 10796/2015, whereby both the writ petitions were dismissed.

2. As an identical issue arises for consideration in these appeals the same' are being disposed ofby this common order.

3. The brief facts as alleged by the appellant in LPA No. 271/2016 are that the appellant was dispossessed on 21.01.2002 from his Jhuggi at Indra Camp,Bapu Dham,New Delhi as the same was required for the public use in accordance with Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government. Vide letter dated 8"^ February 2002, he was allotted Plot No. A-1180,Holamby Kalan Phase-1,Delhi.In response to the allotment letter, appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 7000/- towards license fee for 10 years. The possession ofthe plot was not delivered to him as he failed to produce the original documents and, thus,the allotment ofthe plot stood cancelled. Being aggrieved he filed the writ petition,the order ofwhich is impugned before us.

4. The brief facts of LPA 393/2016 are that the appellant was the resident of Jhuggi No.J -212, Tilak Vihar, New Delhi and the same was.demolished by the MCD under the relocation/rehabilitation policy. Vide letter dated 22.01.1998, the appellant was intimated of the proposal for allotment of a plot at Nasirpur, Delhi and was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.7,000/- for the same. Later,the appellant vide letter dated 8'^ May,1998 was allotted plot No. B-62, Sector 23, Rohini, Delhi and asked to take possession within seven working days but the appellant did not take the possession as he was dissatisfied with the change. The appellant failed to make any representation immediately and approached the authorities by way, LPA 271/2016& 393/2016 Page 2of[6] of representation dated 04.10.2004 to the Department. Since he was not getting any response to his representations he filed a writ petition, order of which is impugned before us.

5. Mr.Jai Bansal,the learned counsel for the appellant submitted thatthe learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that except for the identity card all the other documents were duly submitted.

6. Mr. Srivats Kaushal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondent was allotted a plot in Rohini instead of allotting the same in, Nasirpur which was clearly in breach of contract entered into between the parties under the Rehabilitation Scheme.

7. To substantiate their arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor V.Venkatadri(Dead)By L.Rs: AIR 1979 SC 1144, Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs District Board, Bhojpur:1992 2SCC 598, Trilok Chand Vs H.b. Munshi:1969 2SCR 824, Ram Chand Vs. Union ofIndia:1994 1 SCC 44 and Dhani Ram Kapoor Vs DelhiDevelopmentAuthority:1997(1)AD(Delhi)578 decided 'by this Court. ■

8. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the appellants failed to take the possession ofthe plots and therefore there was deemed cancellation of their allotment. It was further contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed at its threshold, inasmuch as the same is suffering from inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. LPA 271/2016& 393/2016 Page 3of[6]

9. It was urged by the counsel for the respondents that the representations made by the appellant/Makhni Kaur@ Makhni Bai showed that she persisted on getting the plot of her own choice which is not permissible as allotment,of plot depends upon several factors such as availability ofplots.

10. Counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon thejudgment ofthe Apex Court titled as S.S Rathore Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh:AIR 1990 SC10,Ratan Chandra Sammanta & Ors. Vs. Union ofIndia & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2276, Vasantakumar Radhakishan Vora Vs. The Board of Trustees ofthePortofBombay:AIR 1991SC14.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the both parties and perused the material available on record.

12. Admittedly,in both the appeals plots were earmarked to the appellants 'in view of the Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD).In case ofthe appellant/Dayachand, cancellation ofallotment of plot was made as he failed to tender original documents pertaining to his Jhuggi in Indra Camp, Bapu Dham, New Delhi and in the latter case of appellant/Makhni Kaur @ Makhni Bai the cancellation was done on the basis ofnot occupying the allotted plot within the stipulated time as she was emphasizing for allotment ofplot particularly at Nasirpur area.

13. The Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the petitioners therein did not pursue the matter diligently and regularly, whereas in cases 'of rehabilitation the person so dispossessed has to act,with promptitude and carmot belatedly attemptto capitalisefrom the allotment. LPA 271/2016& 393/2016 Page 4of[6]

14. In the facts of the above cases, there has been a delay of[9] and 11 years respectively in approaching the court. The repeated representations as contended by the counsel for the appellants did not mean that they were pursuingthe matter continuously rather itisjustto keepthe stale claim alive. Therefore,in a circumstance ofpresent nature, no plausible explanation has been tendered by the appellants as to why they failed to approach the court sooner especially when the appellants had sufficient knowledge that the cause ofaction had arisen much earlier.

15. The scheme in question owes for rehabilitation ofthose citizens who had been dispossessed by the Government and alternate plots were to be provided to them on urgent basis. But at the same time, it was also necessary for those dispossessed to act promptly without delay so that the purpose ofthe scheme is notfrustrated.