$~90 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010359502026 + W.P.(C) 11178/2026 SAMAY SINGH AND ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. versus DELHI ADMINISTRATION, GNCTD AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. The Petitioners seek a direction to the Respondents to allot residential plots to them in Village Rangpuri, South-West Delhi, under the Government’s 20-Point Programme, on the basis of Resolution No. 1 dated 7th April, 1986, passed by the Village Panchayat/Gram Sabha, Rangpuri. 2. The aforesaid Resolution, however, did not itself effect any allotment in favour of the Petitioners. It identified certain landless/needy villagers for allotment of residential plots and contemplated forwarding the proposal to the Deputy Director, Panchayat, for approval and further action. Thus, any allotment under the 20-Point Programme was necessarily subject to the requisite approval and determination of eligibility and availability of land. No approval or allotment letter in favour of the present Petitioners has been placed on record. 3. The petition has been instituted nearly forty years after the passing of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:31:45 the aforesaid Resolution. The first written representation specifically relied upon by the Petitioners seeking allotment is dated 11th March, 2026. The pleadings contain no account of the steps taken between 1986 and 2026. A bare assertion that verbal representations were made cannot explain silence extending over four decades. 4. The mere submission of a representation does not arrest time or revive a stale or dead claim. The issue of delay and laches has to be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which the representation is made or dealt with.1 5. Reliance upon the decision in Narain Singh v. Delhi Administration2, decided on 31st October, 2011, is misplaced. That case concerned allotment letters issued in 1983 and a petition instituted in 1993. Even then, the Court permitted the Petitioners and similarly placed persons to submit their claims within four weeks. The present Petitioners do not claim to have acted within that period. They remained inactive for a further fourteen years after the judgment. 6. The delay is not merely a matter of form. The petition itself acknowledges that Village Rangpuri has since been urbanised and that the land in question is now stated to fall under the control of the Delhi Development Authority. A proposal concerning public land, made in 1986 and never carried to completion by way of the requisite approval or allotment, cannot be reopened after four decades without a satisfactory explanation for the intervening period. 7. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary It 1 C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining (2008) 10 SCC 115; State of Uttaranchal v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari (2013) 12 SCC 179 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:31:45 cannot be invoked to breathe life into a claim which has remained dormant for an inordinate period, particularly where the claim concerns allotment of public land and the intervening circumstances have materially changed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of gross and unexplained delay and laches. 8. The pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 6, 2026/hc 2 W.P.(C) No. 4836/1993 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/08/2026 at 12:31:45