SURESH KUMAR Vs. GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition seeks mandamus to the Respondents to allot to the Petitioner, "alternative land" admeasuring 45 Bighas 1 Biswa at Mehrauli, Hauz Khas and particulars where of are given in para 22 of the petition and to put the Petitioner into vacant, peaceful, physical possession thereof and alternatively any other land at similar location.

(2.) IT is the case of the Petitioner that his grand father had migrated from Pakistan to India in the year 1947; that as per the policy, he was entitled to get land in India in lieu of land left by him in Pakistan and had made an application dated 11.08.1948 in this regard; that though the grandfather of the Petitioner had been informed that certain land situated at village Masjid Moth had been allotted to him but the final action of completing the allotment and handing over possession was not taken and as such the claim of the grandfather of the Petitioner remained unsettled; that the grandfather of the Petitioner expired on 29.12.1962 and thereafter his sons including the father of the Petitioner continued to pursue the said application and the land aforesaid in village Mehrauli, Hauz Khas, New Delhi was allotted vide allotment letter dated 06.08.1963 and directions were issued to the Patwari to take appropriate steps; however possession of the land was not delivered; that the Land Claims Officer, Department of Rehabilitation continued to examine the entitlement of the predecessors of the Petitioner. Reliance is placed on letters dated 09.05.1967, 22.05.1967 and 22.07.1967 in this regard. The Petitioner also relies on a letter dated 21.05.1975 of the Department of Rehabilitation to the Revenue Assistant enquiring whether the possession of the land had been delivered to the predecessors of the Petitioner. Though in the pleadings of the Petitioner nothing is stated with respect to the period from 21.05.1975 till 08.07.2011, the counsel for the Petitioner contends that the predecessors of the Petitioner and the Petitioner continued to correspond and states that the said record would be available with the Respondents and the notice of the petition should be issued and the Respondents be directed to produce the said records.

(3.) THE aforesaid would show that the claim of the Petitioner is for land stated to have been allotted as far back as in the year 1963 i.e. nearly half a century prior to the present petition. It has been enquired from the counsel for the Petitioner as to why the petition should not be dismissed on the ground of delay, laches, acquiescence and waiver, even if the Petitioner can be said to be having any right. The Petitioner has clearly slept over his rights if any and cannot after 50 years seek the land and in which 50 years, rivers also have changed their course. The Supreme Court recently in Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar : (2011) 5 SCC 607 also relating to Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 set aside the writ issued by the High Court holding that inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the Court in a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the Petitioners therein; the delay in the said case was much less than the delay in the present case; it was held that delay affects the rights created in the interregnum in the third parties.