J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to MCD to allot an alternative plot/flat in lieu of property demolished under a relocation scheme. Petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to pay damages of Rs.10 lacs for mental agony suffered by the petitioner for the last more than thirty-five years.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for respondent has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of laches as the writ petition has been filed after thirty-five years of the cause of action having arisen.

3. Learned counsel for respondent states that admittedly petitioner’s mother was one of the thirty people evicted under a Resettlement Programme and the land admeasuring 25 sq. yds. had been allotted to her in

1976 itself, but she had refused to accept the same.

4. Learned counsel for respondent also points out that the Allotment Committee in its meeting on 30th October, 1995 had not found her eligible for allotment of a Slum Re-housing Flat.

5. However, learned counsel for petitioner states that as the petitioner’s repeated representations were being entertained the rule of laches would not apply. In this connection, he refers to the notings of the various Committees of the Delhi Development Authority itself. He also points out that as there was delay in obtaining the succession certificate, petitioner could not approach the Court immediately.

6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Bansati Prasad vs. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board and Others, Civil Appeal No.3564/2009, wherein it has been held that the issue of laches in each case has to be judged on its own facts and circumstances after keeping in view the conduct of the parties and the prejudice that is likely to be caused to the opposite party or to the general public.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that the present writ petition filed in the year 2011 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of a property demolished in 1976 is barred by laches. The decision to reject the petitioner’s request was communicated to petitioner on 12th July, 1996 and the succession certificate was also granted in petitioner’s favour on 16th December, 2003. Therefore, filing of the present writ petition in 2011 only on the ground that on a fresh representation filed by the petitioner, an internal noting had been made in his favour is of no consequence. It is pertinent to mention that some of the internal notings of the department are also against the petitioner.

8. The Supreme Court with regard to delay and laches in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Bhailal Bhai & Anr., AIR 1964 SC 1006 has held, “........Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art.226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the Court to hold that it is unreasonable......”

9. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Banda Development Authority, Banda Vs. Moti Lal Agarwal & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 394 has held “It is true that no limitation has been prescribed for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but one of the several rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by the superior courts is that the High Court will not entertain petitions filed after long lapse of time because that may adversely affect the settled/crystallised rights of the parties. If th