Full Text
Translation output
$-25 to 28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 7837/2014
JAGBIR SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Naresh K. Daksh, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 7837/2014
JAGBIR SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Naresh K. Daksh, Advocate.
VERSUS
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI
Respondent
Through Ms.Deepika, Advocate.
Respondent
Through Ms.Deepika, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 7844/2014
SMT.HAR KAUR Petitioner
SMT.HAR KAUR Petitioner
VERSUS
Through Mr.B Mahapatra, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 8220/2014
ARUN KUMAR Petitioner
ARUN KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
W.P.(C) 8234/2014
RAJENDER SINGH
Petitioner fV.P. (C) Nos.7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 1of7
2016:DHC:8952
RAJENDER SINGH
Petitioner fV.P. (C) Nos.7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 1of7
2016:DHC:8952
VERSUS
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
26.07.2016 The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the plea of the petitioners seeking allotment of an alternate plot has not been considered by the Department/the respondent. The facts of the aforenoted cases reveal that the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had been acquired prior to the year 1986; the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had applied for an alternate plot sometime in theyear 1986. Thecase of the petitioners was closed on 01.11.1991; this was without intimation to the petitioners and without any show cause notice having been issued to the petitioners.
A representation dated 25.8.1994 was submitted by the petitioners seeking a reopening of their case. Submission of the petitioners is that their case was reconsideredfor reopening and this is evident from the fact that the communications dated 18.10.1996, 27.4.1997, 08.8.1997, 23.9.1997 and 04.4.2000 were addressed to the petitioners seeking certain documents. Petitioners were thus under the bona fide impression thattheir case was being processed. Further submission is that the one ofthe uncles of the petitioners namelyNarain Singhhad
W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page2 of7 a also applied for a reopening of his case and Narain Singh had also preferred a writ petition in this regard. In the year 2009 that writ petition had been allowed in favour of Narain Singh and his case was directed to be reconsidered. That matter was challenged in an LPA and the matter also reached the Supreme Court. It was finailly decided only in the year 2013. Further submission being that on 02.12.2009, the petitioners had made a representation and requested the respondent to again consider their case in view of the
26.07.2016 The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the plea of the petitioners seeking allotment of an alternate plot has not been considered by the Department/the respondent. The facts of the aforenoted cases reveal that the land of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had been acquired prior to the year 1986; the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had applied for an alternate plot sometime in theyear 1986. Thecase of the petitioners was closed on 01.11.1991; this was without intimation to the petitioners and without any show cause notice having been issued to the petitioners.
A representation dated 25.8.1994 was submitted by the petitioners seeking a reopening of their case. Submission of the petitioners is that their case was reconsideredfor reopening and this is evident from the fact that the communications dated 18.10.1996, 27.4.1997, 08.8.1997, 23.9.1997 and 04.4.2000 were addressed to the petitioners seeking certain documents. Petitioners were thus under the bona fide impression thattheir case was being processed. Further submission is that the one ofthe uncles of the petitioners namelyNarain Singhhad
W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page2 of7 a also applied for a reopening of his case and Narain Singh had also preferred a writ petition in this regard. In the year 2009 that writ petition had been allowed in favour of Narain Singh and his case was directed to be reconsidered. That matter was challenged in an LPA and the matter also reached the Supreme Court. It was finailly decided only in the year 2013. Further submission being that on 02.12.2009, the petitioners had made a representation and requested the respondent to again consider their case in view of the
ORDER
passed in the case ofNarain Singh which had been passed on similar facts in favour of Narain Singh. This communication dated
02.12.2009 is a part of the record. It is an admitted document.
Vehement submission being that the petitioners had followed up their case diligently. It was only when the Apex Court finally decided the matter of Narain Singh in the year 2014 and the petitioner not having heard anything from the Department they had no other option but to approachthis Court; this was by way offilingthese writ petitions.
These writ petitions were filed in the year 2014. Submission being that the case of the petitioners should be reconsidered parity with that of Narain Singh; Narain Singh was in fact the uncle of the petitioners; his case was similar to that ofthe petitioners and the same analogy be applied to the case ofthe petitioners.
Respondent has filed a counteraffidavit. His submission is that the cases of the petitioners are time barred. The judgment of Narain
Singhis a judgment in persona and not a judgment in rem and would not be applicable to the facts of the instantcase. Submission being
W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014
I reiterated that the petitioners have slept over their rights and did not follow up the matter diligently. Learned counsel for the respondent in support ofhis submission has placed reliance upon ajudgment ofa
Division Bench of this Court in LPAl 12/2015 Government ofNCT of
Delhi Vs. Jansli Ram and Ors.
Record has been perused.
Record shows that in the instant case, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had applied for an alternative plot during their lifetime but their case was closed because of non-filing of documents in November, 1991. Three years later i.e. in August, 1994, the petitioners submitted representations asking for their cases to be reopened.
There are communications from 1996 to April 2000 (referredto supra) which have been received by the petitioners from the respondent wherein certain documents had been sought for. In this regard the submission of the Department is that unless and until the file is complete and all documents are placed on record, the file cannot be placed before the Recommending Body. This submission is noted. However, in the listof dates and from the entire body of the petition it is clear that since the year 1994 the petitioners did not bother to take any steps (up to December 2009) when they made a representation to the Department asking for reconsideration of their case inview ofthe judgment passed inthecase ofNarain Singh.
Narain Singh was admittedly the uncle of the petitioners. He had filed WP(C) 3587/2007 which has been decided inhisfavour.
W.P.(C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 4of7
That matter had been taken up in appeal. The submission ofthe petitioners that they were awaiting the decision of the case of Narain
Singh is not borne out from any record. There is no record which speaks in favour of the petitioners that they had taken any steps to follow up the reopening of their cases for which they had filed a representation in August, 1994. Admittedly, up to December, 2009 i.e. in the next more than 15 years the petitioners slept over the matter and did not do anything to find out as to what had happened to their representation which they hadgiven in August, 1994 for reopening of their case. In this 15 years period which is more than VA decade it cannotbe imagined that the petitioners werewithouta home or had no place for shelter. Even after having made a representation in
December, 2009 again up to November, 2014 there is again nothing on recordto suggestthat the petitioners had taken action in the matter.
They had again slumberedfor the next 5 years.
A Division Bench of this Court in Ramawati V5'. Government of
NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/2387/2014 on the aspect of delay and laches in scheme dealing withallotment of alternative plotshad noted herein as under:
"An application for alternative land in lieu of acquired land, who sleeps over his/her right cannot wake up as and when he/she desires and claim allotment of alternative land. The Scheme of allotment of alternative residential plot in lieu of acquired land is rehabilitative in nature and considering that such allotment of alternativeland is in lieuofacquired land, there is an element of
W.P.(C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page5 of7 urgency therein. Once anapplicant isfound to have not been diligent in pursuing such anapplication and/or isfound to have slept over the rhatter, it has hut to bepresumed thathe/she is not interested and not in need ofany welfare rehabilitative measure. It cannot be lost sight ofthat the full bench ofthis Court in Ramanand v^. Union ofIndia
AIR 1994 Delhi 29 has held that the Scheme does not vest any right in anyone to alternative land and that the only right under the Scheme is a right to be considered; itisfor the applicant to take stepsfor his/her case to be considered and if does not take such steps, cannot claim that any right has beenviolated. "
This Court is of the view that the dicta laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the aforenoted judgment would be applicable to the facts in hand. Admittedly, even as per the case of the petitioners, they had made an application in August, 1994 for reopening oftheir case which had been closed in November, 1991; for the next 10 years i.e. up to December, 2009 they had not taken any steps in the matter. They had made a request to the Department in
December, 2009 but thereafter again slept over the matter till
November, 2014 (when as per them) they learnt about the judgment having been passed in favour of their uncle and they thereafter approached this Court.
This Court- is not in sympathy with this attitude of the petitioners. The scheme for allotment ofan alternate plot had been floated by the Government to give succour to those persons who were without a home. It was for those persons who hadbeen rendered
W.P.(C) Nos.7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 6of7 homeless because of the acquisition of the land. If this purpose is allowed to be flouted and the petitioners are allowed to apply for alternative plots years later, the obvious presumption is that they had homes in these preceding years as it cannot be imagined that in all those years they remained homeless or without an alternate house.
This scheme has not been floated for any commercial purpose. This
Court is highly suspicious about the attitude of thepetitioners.
The case of Narain Singh is distinct. In that case, the
Department had in the year 2007 communicated to Narain Singh that hispleafor allotment of alternate plothasbeen rejected whereupon he had approached the Court forthwith and got order in his favour. He had played an activerole. The presentpetitionerscannotbe treated at parity. They did not bother to find out about the fate of their applications which they had filed in the year 1994 up to 2009 and even after their representation ofDecember 2009 they slumberedover their rights (if any) till November, 2014 when they approached this
Court.
This Courtis not inclined to entertainthe plea ofthe petitioners.
The petitions are barred by laches. They are dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 26,2016/ndn W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 7of7
02.12.2009 is a part of the record. It is an admitted document.
Vehement submission being that the petitioners had followed up their case diligently. It was only when the Apex Court finally decided the matter of Narain Singh in the year 2014 and the petitioner not having heard anything from the Department they had no other option but to approachthis Court; this was by way offilingthese writ petitions.
These writ petitions were filed in the year 2014. Submission being that the case of the petitioners should be reconsidered parity with that of Narain Singh; Narain Singh was in fact the uncle of the petitioners; his case was similar to that ofthe petitioners and the same analogy be applied to the case ofthe petitioners.
Respondent has filed a counteraffidavit. His submission is that the cases of the petitioners are time barred. The judgment of Narain
Singhis a judgment in persona and not a judgment in rem and would not be applicable to the facts of the instantcase. Submission being
W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014
I reiterated that the petitioners have slept over their rights and did not follow up the matter diligently. Learned counsel for the respondent in support ofhis submission has placed reliance upon ajudgment ofa
Division Bench of this Court in LPAl 12/2015 Government ofNCT of
Delhi Vs. Jansli Ram and Ors.
Record has been perused.
Record shows that in the instant case, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners had applied for an alternative plot during their lifetime but their case was closed because of non-filing of documents in November, 1991. Three years later i.e. in August, 1994, the petitioners submitted representations asking for their cases to be reopened.
There are communications from 1996 to April 2000 (referredto supra) which have been received by the petitioners from the respondent wherein certain documents had been sought for. In this regard the submission of the Department is that unless and until the file is complete and all documents are placed on record, the file cannot be placed before the Recommending Body. This submission is noted. However, in the listof dates and from the entire body of the petition it is clear that since the year 1994 the petitioners did not bother to take any steps (up to December 2009) when they made a representation to the Department asking for reconsideration of their case inview ofthe judgment passed inthecase ofNarain Singh.
Narain Singh was admittedly the uncle of the petitioners. He had filed WP(C) 3587/2007 which has been decided inhisfavour.
W.P.(C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 4of7
That matter had been taken up in appeal. The submission ofthe petitioners that they were awaiting the decision of the case of Narain
Singh is not borne out from any record. There is no record which speaks in favour of the petitioners that they had taken any steps to follow up the reopening of their cases for which they had filed a representation in August, 1994. Admittedly, up to December, 2009 i.e. in the next more than 15 years the petitioners slept over the matter and did not do anything to find out as to what had happened to their representation which they hadgiven in August, 1994 for reopening of their case. In this 15 years period which is more than VA decade it cannotbe imagined that the petitioners werewithouta home or had no place for shelter. Even after having made a representation in
December, 2009 again up to November, 2014 there is again nothing on recordto suggestthat the petitioners had taken action in the matter.
They had again slumberedfor the next 5 years.
A Division Bench of this Court in Ramawati V5'. Government of
NCT of Delhi MANU/DE/2387/2014 on the aspect of delay and laches in scheme dealing withallotment of alternative plotshad noted herein as under:
"An application for alternative land in lieu of acquired land, who sleeps over his/her right cannot wake up as and when he/she desires and claim allotment of alternative land. The Scheme of allotment of alternative residential plot in lieu of acquired land is rehabilitative in nature and considering that such allotment of alternativeland is in lieuofacquired land, there is an element of
W.P.(C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page5 of7 urgency therein. Once anapplicant isfound to have not been diligent in pursuing such anapplication and/or isfound to have slept over the rhatter, it has hut to bepresumed thathe/she is not interested and not in need ofany welfare rehabilitative measure. It cannot be lost sight ofthat the full bench ofthis Court in Ramanand v^. Union ofIndia
AIR 1994 Delhi 29 has held that the Scheme does not vest any right in anyone to alternative land and that the only right under the Scheme is a right to be considered; itisfor the applicant to take stepsfor his/her case to be considered and if does not take such steps, cannot claim that any right has beenviolated. "
This Court is of the view that the dicta laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the aforenoted judgment would be applicable to the facts in hand. Admittedly, even as per the case of the petitioners, they had made an application in August, 1994 for reopening oftheir case which had been closed in November, 1991; for the next 10 years i.e. up to December, 2009 they had not taken any steps in the matter. They had made a request to the Department in
December, 2009 but thereafter again slept over the matter till
November, 2014 (when as per them) they learnt about the judgment having been passed in favour of their uncle and they thereafter approached this Court.
This Court- is not in sympathy with this attitude of the petitioners. The scheme for allotment ofan alternate plot had been floated by the Government to give succour to those persons who were without a home. It was for those persons who hadbeen rendered
W.P.(C) Nos.7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 6of7 homeless because of the acquisition of the land. If this purpose is allowed to be flouted and the petitioners are allowed to apply for alternative plots years later, the obvious presumption is that they had homes in these preceding years as it cannot be imagined that in all those years they remained homeless or without an alternate house.
This scheme has not been floated for any commercial purpose. This
Court is highly suspicious about the attitude of thepetitioners.
The case of Narain Singh is distinct. In that case, the
Department had in the year 2007 communicated to Narain Singh that hispleafor allotment of alternate plothasbeen rejected whereupon he had approached the Court forthwith and got order in his favour. He had played an activerole. The presentpetitionerscannotbe treated at parity. They did not bother to find out about the fate of their applications which they had filed in the year 1994 up to 2009 and even after their representation ofDecember 2009 they slumberedover their rights (if any) till November, 2014 when they approached this
Court.
This Courtis not inclined to entertainthe plea ofthe petitioners.
The petitions are barred by laches. They are dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J JULY 26,2016/ndn W.P. (C) Nos. 7837/2014, 7844/2014, 8220/2014 &8234/2014 page 7of7