Paltu and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel.

The contention raised is that the petitioners were allotted housing sites after the land vested in the State under a notification dated 6th of July, 1974.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent having failed to get any relief against the said divesting of the land, appears to have approached the State Government and a lease under the Government Grants Act has been extended on 7th of October, 1982.

Learned Counsel submits that so far as the allotment in favour of the petitioners is concerned, the same has not been set aside and in spite of moving several complaints in this regard, possession has not been delivered to them. The prayer is that the application moved by the petitioners dated 6th of June, 2011 be directed to be disposed of as the same is pending relating to the claim of possession.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the lease in favour of the respondent is ex facie illegal and the possession of the petitioner cannot be forestalled on the basis of any such unlawful allotment.

There is no challenge to the lease in favour of the respondent dated 7th of October, 1982. The same has subsisted for almost 29 years.

Apart from this, the petitioners who claim allotment in the year 1974 have arrived before this Court after 37 years without there being any valid explanation as to why they did not approach this Court before. This gap of laches, therefore, remains absolutely unexplained or even otherwise no plausible explanation has been given before this Court. The Apex Court in the case of A.P.S.R.T.C. and Others Vs. G. Srinivas Reddy and Others, has held that if laches are sought to be explained by moving repeated representations then the High Court should be loath in interfering in such matters.

The aforesaid circumstances, therefore, leave no room for doubt that the petition is heavily barred by laches and there is no challenge to the grant dated 7.10.1982.

In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed.