2005 (2) TMI 908 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against rejection of claim for alternative plot of land under a land acquisition scheme for planned development of Delhi.
2. Delay in making the application for alternative plot after the last date specified in the scheme.
3. Legal principles regarding the allotment of alternative plots and the need for timely application.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellants appealed against the rejection of their claim for an alternative plot of land under a land acquisition scheme for Delhi's planned development. The appeal was based on the judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 15.10.2003 in CW No. 1880/1999. The scheme required applications for alternative plots to be made by a specified date, and in this case, the first application was submitted by the legal heir of the original landowner after a significant delay of 16 years.

Issue 2:
The delay in making the application for the alternative plot was a crucial point of contention. The Full Bench of the Court had previously established that there is no absolute right to such allotments, but eligible individuals could be considered for the same. In this case, the appellants approached the Court 14 years after the rejection of the initial claim, without having made any individual claim earlier. The Court emphasized the importance of vigilance in asserting one's rights promptly and within a reasonable period.

Issue 3:
The judgment highlighted the legal principle that a party must provide a satisfactory explanation for any delay in making an application for an alternative plot. The Court referred to a previous case where it was held that there is no vested right to claim such allotments in cases of gross delay without a valid explanation. The purpose of providing alternative plots is for rehabilitation, and any gross delay in seeking such relief may indicate a lack of genuine need, leading to a waiver of the right to claim such allotment.

In conclusion, the Court found no fault in the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action, valid explanations for delays, and the necessity of genuine need for alternative plot allotments in cases of land acquisition for planned development.