AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.C. Patel, C.J.—The appellants have preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.10.2003 in CW No. 1880/1999 rejecting the claim of the appellants for alternative plot of land under the scheme of allotment of such plots on large-scale acquisition of land for planned development of Delhi.
One Shri Paras Ram was possessed of land at Madangir Village and the land was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the said Act''). The notification was issued u/s 4 of the said Act on 13.11.1959 and the Award was made on 13.05.1963. In terms of the scheme, the last date for making application for alternative plot was 15.12.1963. However, Shri Paras Ram did not make any application for allotment of alternative plot and the first time such application as made by his legal heir, i.e., respondent No. 6 herein and that too on 22.10.1979, after a lapse of 16 years.
It appears that initially the request of respondent No. 6 was accepted, but before the allotment could be made, the earlier decision was recalled. Respondent No. 6 filed a civil writ petition being CWP No. 700/1983 in which directions were issued for re-examination of the case of respondent No. 6 after giving a show-cause notice since earlier intimation was sought to be withdrawn. The matter was re-examined and the claim of respondent No. 6 was rejected on 15.05.1985. Respondent No. 6 kept quite after that. It may be noticed that the appellants are the brothers of respondent No. 6 and they at no stage made any claim.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand Vs. Union of India and Others, has held that there is no absolute right for allotment of such alternative plots, but the eligible persons are liable to be considered for allotment of such plots. This is so as such persons receive compensation for acquisition of land and the allotment of alternative plot is an additional measure of rehabilitation.
In the present case, the appellants have approached this Court 14 years after the claim of respondent No. 6 was rejected and never made an individual claim earlier. Learned Single Judge has rightly considered in the impugned order various judgments and the principle of law that a litigant must be vigilant about his rights and must approach the Court within a reasonable period.
It is not as if no application could have been made after 15.12.1963, but a party would have to explain the reasons for the delay. The delay is enormous in the present case without any satisfactory Explanation for the same.
It may be noted that in the case of Chander Bose v. Union of India and Ors., (107) 2000 DLT 604, one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) had the occasion to examine a similar situation and it was held that there is no right vested in the persons for claiming the allotment of alternative plot when there is gross delay in making the application without any Explanation for the same. This decision stands affirmed in appeal by this Court in LPA No. 8666/2003 in terms of the Order dated 05.12.2003.
In the end, it must be noted that the very object of providing for such alternative plot is a measure of rehabilitation and, thus, a person would ordinarily approach the concerned Department immediately for his needs. Such gross delay in approaching early indicates that there is no actual need of the plot and for that reason also the Government need not exercise the power to make such allotment as an additional measure of rehabilitation. The failure of the person, who has the right to approach the authority, to so approach within a reasonable time amounts to a waiver of the right and is, thus, not liable to be heard in the matter.
For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge in the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
CM No. 203/2004
Counsel for the applicant requests that he may be permitted to withdraw the application in view of CM No. 1493/2005. Permission granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
CM No. 1493/2005
This is an application preferred by respondent No. 6 to be imp leaded as one of the appellants. The said applicant was respondent in the original writ petition and did not even enter appearance. No appeal was filed by the said respondent No. 6 and, thus, the judgment was accepted by the said respondent. The said applicant / respondent No. 6 cannot, thus, be permitted by this indirect mode to challenge the decision of learned Single Judge belatedly, without even an application for condensation of delay being filed as also for the reasons referred to aforesaid. The application is accordingly dismissed.