( 1 ) BY this petition filed on 1st April, 1991, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned communication dated 3. 12. 90 issued by the respondent No. 2, Joint Secretary, Landb Delhi Administration and a direction to the respondents to allot to the petitioner an alternative plot under Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Lands in Delhi Scheme, 1961.

( 2 ) VIDE notification dated 24. 10. 61 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 large scale of land was proposed to be acquired for the public purpose of the planned development of Delhi. One of the persons whose land was acquired was one Pat Ram Gujar. On 21. 1. 63, the said Pat Ram transferred 450sq. yds of plot out of 700 sq. yds. to 3 persons namely Kulwant Kaur, Jaswant Kaur (the petitioner) and Gyan Kaur. The petitioner is claiming an alternative plot of land under the scheme of the respondents. On 3. 12. 90 vide Annexure P-8, the respondent No. 2 has informed the petitioner with reference to her application dated 28. 4. 89 that she has been found not eligible for allotment of an alternative plot because she was not the owner of the land at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act i. e. on 24. 10. 91.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner it is the policy of the respondent to allot alternative plot of land to the person adversely effected by land acquisition and in as much as she is one who has stepped into the shoes of the person whose land has been acquired, she is entitled to allotment of an alternative plot. She had made an application on 17. 4. 65 seeking allotment and thereafter she has been pursuing her claim for allotment which has finally been rejected in the year 1990. Hence the petition.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondents, the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of any land by way of alternative plot in as much as the petitioner is not `the person whose land was acquired . She has purchased the land in question only after the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which transaction is illegal in itself as no one can transfer his title or interest in the land subsequent to the date of the notification under Section 4 abovesaid. The object of the scheme framed by the respondents is rehabilitation of bonafide displaced persons consequent to their having been uprooted by large scale acquisition of land. It is not the intendment of the scheme to confer some benefit on the persons whose lands have been acquired much less to the persons who purchase land subsequent to the date of the notification, may be with the object of earning a right to allotment of an alternative plot.

( 5 ) IN an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 on 11. 7. 96, it has been stated that the respondents have never received any application for the allotment of an alternative plot on 17. 4. 65 as alleged by the petitioner. The impugned decision communicated vide letter dated 3. 12. 90 has been taken on the petitioner s application dated 19. 7. 89 which was apparently highly belated.

( 6 ) TWO questions arise for decision : firstly, whether the petitioner, a purchaser of land subsequent to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is entitled to allotment of an alternative plot under the policy of the respondents; and secondly, whether the petition is highly belated and hence liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

( 7 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there have been two schemes of the respondents for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land. The earlier scheme was of the year 1961 and the latter scheme is of the year 1989. In the year 1961 there was no bar on purchasing the land even though it was covered by a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The bar was created for the first time by an enactment known as Delhi Lands (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972. Thus