Delay and laches can defeat a claim for relief, and the law of limitation must be applied with all its rigour when the statute prescribes a limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

The present Appeal is arising out of the order dated 27.09.2022 passed in W.P.(C.) No. 2946/2018 titled Vikas Jain v. Union of India. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellant came up before this Court by filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents to allot an alternative plot to the Petitioner in pursuance to the Application submitted by his Late Grand Mother.

2. A prayer was also made for quashment of order dated 19.06.1998 by which the claim of the petitioner/appellant herein was turned down.

3. The undisputed facts of the case make it very clear that Appellant's Grand Mother Smt. Prabhavati was the owner of a Plot situated in Village Gharuanda Neem Ka Bangar, Paharganj, New Delhi and vide notification dated 13.11.1959, the plot was acquired wide Award No. 6-C/71-72. The compensation was paid to the predecessor-in-title on 26.10.1994 and the Grand Mother of the Appellant executed a will on 04.10.1988 in favour of the Appellant herein.

4. It is an undisputed fact that a Scheme was notified on 02.05.1961 for “Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi” and the Grand Mother of the Appellant on 09.05.1995 submitted an Application for alternative plot which was to be provided as per the Scheme. The Application was rejected on 19.06.1998, and after a lapse of about 20 years a Writ Petition was preferred before this Court.

5. The Learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the Appellant/Petitioner therein and Paragraph Nos. 23 to 44 of the aforesaid order read as under:

“23. The respondent no. 3, while passing the impugned order dated 19th June 1998 noted that the applicant was not the recorded owner of the concerned land prior to the issuance of the Notification published notifying its acquisition. The contents of the order are reproduced hereunder:—

“With reference to your application dated 09.05.95 for allotment of alternative plot, I am directed to inform you that your case was considered by the committee constituted for recommendation of alternative plots and rejected on the ground that you were not the recorded owner in the land records prior to issue of notification Under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.”

24. The sole ground taken by the respondent no. 3 while rejecting the application of allotment of alternative plot was that the applicant was not the recorded owner of the land acquired prior to the issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act.

25. To examine the validity of the ground taken by the respondent no. 3 while rejecting the application of the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, the objectives and the background of the Scheme of 1961 may be analysed.

26. The Scheme for Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, which came into force on 2nd May 1961 and has been modified from time to time, not only provided for measures for controlling value in urban areas but also largely regulated the conditions stipulated for acquisition, development and disposal of land.

27. The objective of the Scheme of 1961 suggests as under:

“The scheme of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure”

28. This objective has also been reiterated by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases. A coordinate bench of this Court in Jai Singh Kanwar v. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 492, made the following observations:—

“7.2 Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley explained the rationale for the policy was to see that the population of Delhi is properly housed and has the means for acquiring residential houses and further that if a person has bought a residential plot privately and the State chooses to acquire that land at a very meagre price, then surely it is the duty of the State to