GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. DHANPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 5th July, 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 12961/2005.

(2.) AT the very outset, we may note with profit that on earlier occasion the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge, which was assailed in LPA No. 1215/2006. A Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 6 to 8 had opined thus:

(3.) ON a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, specially paragraph 17, it is perceivable that he has expressed the view that the writ petitioner is a widow and illiterate and hence, a liberal approach is to be adopted. The land under the scheme is not to be granted solely on the basis of sympathy. It is worth noting that compensation was paid sometime in the year 1987. A representation was made for grant of land under the scheme in the said year. The same stood rejected in 1991 which has been admitted by the writ petitioner. After the remit in the intra-Court appeal, the documents have been brought on record in support of the same. Hence, there remains no doubt that the writ petition was preferred after expiry of 14 years. 5. This Court in LPA No. 674/2010 after placing reliance on Mange Ram versus Delhi Development Authority and Others, 2010 DRJ (120) 45, had dealt with the matter relating to delay and laches and opined that in certain cases the delay may not be a factor but in certain cases it would be an impediment for entertaining the writ petition. The said view has been laid down in Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Mohd Ismail, (LPA No. 548/2010 decided on 25th July, 2011) when the Division Bench taking note of Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. versus District Board, Bhojpur, (1992) 2 SCC 598, State of Maharashtra versus Digambar, (1995) 4 SCC 683 and Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd. versus K. Thangappan, (2006) 4 SCC 322 has opined that when a litigant is not vigilant and approaches the Court quite belatedly, the benefit cannot be conferred. It is enshrined therein that laches in certain circumstances encourages dubious claims and prevents fair and just adjudication in courts. Similar view has been expressed in LPA No. 247/2011 by placing reliance on Basanti Prasad versus Chairman, Bihar School Examination and Others, (2009) 6 SCC 791 wherein it has been held thus: