2012 (4) TMI 575

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur (husband of respondent No.1) for allotment of 1000 sq. yards land was upheld. 3. By notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, by the Act by ), the Government of India proposed the acquisition of 2275 Bigha and 18 Biswa land of village Kotla for planned development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on 20.6.1966 and the award was passed on 5.1.1977. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 25.4.1977. 4. The husband of respondent No.1, who is said to have purchased 1000 sq. yards land forming part of Khasra Nos.166, 167 and 168 from Hari Chand son of Mukh Dayal Singh, General Power of Attorney of M/s. Universal Colonizers vide Sale Deed dated 12.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entation dated 12.10.1989 and reiterated his demand for allotment of plot by asserting that the reason assigned by the Competent Authority was untenable. He claimed that the benefit of the policy framed by the Government of India cannot be denied to him because his entitlement to get compensation in respect of khasra No. 70/2 was accepted by Additional District Judge, Delhi and Gaon Sabha has no right over the land comprised in that khasra number. Thereupon, the Special Secretary, Delhi Administration sent letter dated 7.3.1990 to Ranjodh Kumar Thakur and informed him that the decision communicated to him vide letter dated 28.8.1989 holds good. The second representation made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur on 3.4.1990 was rejected by the Competent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....otment of alternate plot. The case of the petitioner has to be considered for the said allotment subject to fulfillment of the normal formalities and other conditions prevalent at the relevant time. 5. It directed that the petitioner shall appear before Deputy Secretary, [Alternate] Department of Land & Building Government of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi on 4th April, 2003 at 3.00 P. M. and the necessary action shall be taken and the recommendation be made in terms of the policy of the respondent within a maximum period of three months from the said date which has to be communicated to respondent no. 1 within the said period of time for further action by respondent no.l.by 9. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iled after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because in the subsequent communication the concerned authorities had merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would stand. It is trite to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation by State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai (1964) 6 SCR 261. ii) The claim of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur for allotment of land was clearly misconceived and was....