The delay in submitting the application for allotment of plots disentitled the petitioners from seeking a mandatory direction from the Court for allotment of plots.

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. (Oral) - On June 26, 1989, the State of Haryana issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short to be called "the Act") for the development and extension of Panchkula. On June 25, 1990, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued. On Julie 17, 1992, the Land Acquisition Collector had given the award. After a lapse of more than six years of the issue of the notification under Section 6 of the Act and after more than four years of the award of the Land Acquisition Collector, the petitioners made an application to the Haryana Urban Development Authority for allotment of a one kanal plot. The respondents having not made any allotment, the petitioners approached this Court through the present writ petition. They allege that the action of the respondents is violative of the Instructions issued Memorandum dated March 18, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P5 with the writ petition. On this basis, the petitioners pray for the issue of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to allot a residential plot in accordance with the Instructions of the Authority.

2. The respondents have filed a written statement, contesting the claim of the petitioners. It has been inter alia pleaded that the cause of action had arisen to the petitioners when the land was acquired and later on when the Sectors were floated in the year 1993-94. Since the petitioners had applied in November, 1996, the claim was highly belated and could not, thus, be entertained.

3. It appears that this writ petition was taken up for hearing by a Bench of this Court in the year 1999. Learned counsel for the respondents was directed to place before the Court "advertisement/notice, if any, issued by the competent authority inviting application for allotment of residential plots to the outstees of the land, which was utilised for floating Sectors 25 and 26 for Urban Estate Panchkula". These documents were placed before the Bench on May 26, 1999. Thereafter, their Lordships had dismissed the writ petition. It was inter alia observed as under :

"... ... ... while inviting applications for allotment of plots to the various categories of persons, the competent authority of HUDA had specifically asked the oustees of the acquired land to make applications before 12.1.1993 for allotment of residential plots. The petitioners have not come forward with the plea that the landowner Shri Agya Ram and they did not know about the publication of these advertisements. They have not even controverted the assertion made in para 9 of the written statement that they did not submit applications when the Sectors for allotment of plots were floated in the year 1993-94. In our opinion the failure of the petitioners to submit applications on or before the last date specified in the notices got published by the HUDA inviting applications for allotment of plots to various categories including the oustees is sufficient to disentitle them from seeking a mandatory direction from the Court for allotment of plots."

The writ petition was dismissed.

4. An application. viz. Civil Miscellaneous No. 27121 of 1999 was filed. It was inter alia averred that the counsel could not appear. Therefore, it was prayed that the order be recalled. The Bench recalled the order. Thus, the matter has now been listed before us.

5. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that according to the decision of the Authority, the oustees are entitled to the allotment of plots. It is only after the oustees have been accommodated that the remaining plots can be offered to the general public for allotment. He has further contended that the delay in the submission of the application is of no consequence. Relying upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in S.B. Kishore v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 Supreme Court 90, the counsel submits that even a delay of 19 years call be condoned.

6. The purpose of the In