GANGU SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Taking note of the observations made by Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago that "fraud avoid all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal" their Lordships of the Supreme Court said in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and can be summarily thrown out at any stage of litigation. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. These observations are very apt for the instant case.

(2.) The case has a little chequered history. Pursuant to the scheme for allotment of alternative plots of land under the large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi, notified on 2 May 1961, applications were invited from those persons whose land was acquired for planned development of Delhi. The last date for submission of application was 10 December 1963. The petitioner, who had received compensation for acquisition of his land, in the year 1962 did not choose to apply for allotment of a developed residential plot within the stipulated period. An application dated 28 June 1978, submitted by him for alternative plot was received in the office of Land & Building Department on 12 July 1978 in file No.F.32(5)/3/78-L&B/Alt. On the application, report of the LAC was received on 3 December 1981 and, as expected, the said application was rejected being barred by time. The rejection order was communicated to the petitioner on 31 May 1982.

(3.) The order of the DDA, dated 31 May 1982, rejecting the application of the petitioner as time barred, was challenged by the petitioner in CWP No.1705/1982 titled Gangu Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. The writ petition was decided on 19 October 1984 along with other cases. Though the fact of obtaining the plot on the basis of a forged letter was brought to the notice of the Court but the case of the petitioner was decided on the basis of the decision in the case of Raj Kumar Jain, whose request for alternative plot was rejected as barred by time. The impugned order was quashed on the ground that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. The Delhi Administration was directed to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and of being heard.