9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 908X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 4 and 5 and Priya Kumar, Adv. for R - 6 JUDGMENT B.C. Patel, C.J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeal aggrieved by the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 15.10.2003 in CW No. 1880/1999 rejecting the claim of the appellants for alternative plot of land under the scheme of allotment of such plots on large-scale acquisition of land for planned development of Delhi. 2. One S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition being CWP No. 700/1983 in which directions were issued for re-examination of the case of respondent No. 6 after giving a show-cause notice since earlier intimation was sought to be withdrawn. The matter was re-examined and the claim of respondent No. 6 was rejected on 15.05.1985. Respondent No. 6 kept quite after that. It may be noticed that the appellants are the brothers of respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court within a reasonable period. 6. It is not as if no application could have been made after 15.12.1963, but a party would have to explain the reasons for the delay. The delay is enormous in the present case without any satisfactory Explanation for the same. 7. It may be noted that in the case of Chander Bose v. Union of India and Ors., (107) 2000 DLT 604, one of us (Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.) ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The failure of the person, who has the right to approach the authority, to so approach within a reasonable time amounts to a waiver of the right and is, thus, not liable to be heard in the matter. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no infirmity in the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by learned Single Judge in the impugned order and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. CM No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
