Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DAILYLAW 2656 (DEL)

RAMESH CHAND SHARMA v. LT. GOVERNOR

2007-10-12

Sanjiv Khanna

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, C. J, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 14th August, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. ( 2 ) GRANDFATHER of the appellant was owner of land at Gazipur. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the land of the grandfather of the appellant was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Compensation for acquisition was paid by passing an award. ( 3 ) ON 18th April, 1977, possession of the said land was also taken over by the land Acquisition Officer. The grandfather of the appellant died on 2nd April, 1982. ( 4 ) ON 21st March, 1989, the appellant allegedly filed an application for the first time seeking for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired by the respondent. The said application was allegedly received by the deputy Director (Alt.) Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, receipt of any such application dated 21st March, 1989 was denied by the respondent and it was stated that such a request cannot be made by the appellant at a distant date i. e. some time in the year 2004 by filing a writ petition in the Court. ( 6 ) THE learned Single Judge considered the various pleas raised by the counsel for the appellant before him and on perusal of the records and on appreciation of the submissions made dismissed the writ petition holding that after a lapse of 15 years no such request from the appellant could be entertained and the prayer for allotment of alternative land was rightly rejected by the department. ( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) WE have also been taken through the records. While doing so, the counsel for the appellant has also submitted before us that such an application dated 21st march, 1989 was in fact received by the respondent, which is also established from the letter dated 26th November, 1998 written by the Deputy Secretary (Alt. ). ( 8 ) WE have also been taken through the records. While doing so, the counsel for the appellant has also submitted before us that such an application dated 21st march, 1989 was in fact received by the respondent, which is also established from the letter dated 26th November, 1998 written by the Deputy Secretary (Alt. ). ( 9 ) EVEN assuming that there was a letter of the appellant seeking for allotment of an alternative plot, such an application was filed only on 21st March, 1989 although the land was acquired as far back as in 1977. However, the stand taken by the appellant that an application for alternative land was submitted on 21st march, 1989 is not borne out from the records. The letter which is relied upon is dated 26th November, 1998. We find no reason as to why after such a distant date a letter dated 21st March, 1989 would be referred to and would be replied to. The letter dated 21st March, 1989 is not appearing on the record at all. As to how the said Deputy Secretary (Alt.) came to learn about the aforesaid representation dated 21st March, 1989 is not clear from the aforesaid letter. The said letter was apparently written on 26th November, 1998 making a reference to other letters written by the appellant and also making a reference to the alleged application filed on 21st March, 1989. The official records, which were examined by the learned Single Judge, did not contain the aforesaid letter nor any document to show that the said letter was in fact produced or received by the respondent. The appellant has not placed any acknowledgement either before the Writ Court or before us in support of his claim. ( 10 ) WE are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in recording that a claim for grant of alternative plot of land cannot be agitated after lapse of about 15 years. Reference and reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India reported in AIR 1994 Delhi 29 is also appropriate as there is no vested inherent right in the appellant to claim allotment of plot of land. ( 11 ) WE find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. ( 11 ) WE find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. Consequently, the application being CM No. 14063/2007 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is not required to be decided as we find that the appeal is without merit.