The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time limit set by the respondent for submitting applications for alternative plots was upheld, and delay and laches in approaching the authority for allotment of alternative land disentitled the petitioner for relief.

( 1 ) IN the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the orderdated 15. 2. 1990 passed by the Special Secretary of Delhi Administration rejectingthe claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land. By this writ petition thepetitioner also seeks for adirection to the respondents for allotment of an alternativeplot in favour of the petitioner in terms of the scheme adopted by the respondents inthe year 1961.

( 2 ) LAND of the petitioner measuring 9 biswas comprised in Khasra No. "1189/317situated in Village Kilokari was acquired by the respondent. In respect of the aforesaidacquisition proceedings an award was passed on 16. 5. 1961. The petitioner receivedcompensation as admitted by her sometime in the month of April, 1969 and theconstruction standing on the said land was demolished by the respondent afteracquisition of the land sometime in the month of March, 1969. The petitioner reliesupon the scheme adopted by the respondents in the year 1961. She claims allotmentof an alternative plot of land in view of the aforesaid acquisition of her land inaccordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme adopted by the respondentin 1961. An application claiming allotment of alternative plot of land in view ofacquisition of her land was submitted sometime in the year 1982. The said applicationwas considered by the respondents and the same was rejected by the communicationissued on 15. 2. 1990 intimating that her case was carefully examined and that thesaid prayer was rejected on the ground that her case was time barred as she shouldhave submitted her application before 15. 12. 1963 whereas she submitted theapplication only in the year 1982 for land acquired underaward dated 20. 10. 1961. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid communication the petitioner has preferred thiswrit petition on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no opportunity wasgiven to the petitioner to explain the delay, if any, in submitting the aforesaid applicationseeking for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land. It was alsosubmitted that the said order does not take notice of the circular and the schemeadopted by the respondent in the year 1961 and the date of 15. 12. 1963 fixed by therespondent in the public notice was not binding on the petitioner in support of hiscontention the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Courtin Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and others, reported in AIR1987 Delhi 47. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court innitya Nand M. Joshi and Another Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India andanother, reported in AIR 1970 SC 209; S. B. Kishore Vs. Union of India and others,air 1991 SC 90 and the decision in State of U. P. Vs. Smt. Pista Devi, reported inair 1986 SC 2025.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted thatunder the aforesaid scheme adopted by the respondent in the year 1961 the petitionerdid not have a right to be provided with an alternative plot. The only right she had wasto be considered for allotment of a plot in lieu of acquisition of her land. He alsosubmitted that there was inordinate delay and laches on her part in lodging the claimfor allotment of alternative plot and that her claim was time barred. In support of thecontention the counsel relied upon the Press Notification dated 23. 11. 1963 issuedby the respondent, a copy of which is placed on record. He also relied upon the Fullbench decision of this Court in Rama Nand Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR1994 Delhi page 29 as also the decision in Jaswant Kaur Vs. Lt. Governor,reported in 1997 (40) DRJ 703.

( 5 ) BEFORE appreciating the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary toput on record certain admitted facts in the present writ petition. The land of thepetitioner measuring 9 biswas situated