In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... C.W.P. No.14691 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:5.10.2009 Satpal Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and others .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. S.K. Pipat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ramanjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to finalize the allotment of land that has been allotted to the father of the petitioner in Village Powat, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana regarding which the Sanad/certificate (Annexure-P.1) has already been issued in favour of the father of the petitioner on 23.1.1980. The case of the petitioner is that Manorath Singh son of Nihal Singh, who is the father of the petitioner was allotted land measuring 46 Kanals 7 Marlas in Village Powat, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana and Sanad/certificate was issued by the Collector on 23.1.1980 (Annexure-P.1). Thereafter, the petitioner went to deposit the instalment, however, the authorities did not accept the same on the ground that some litigation qua the land was pending. It is alleged that it has been shown in the revenue records against the allotment in favour of the father of the petitioner that litigation was pending in respect of the allotted land which was declared as C.W.P. No.14691 of 2009 [2] surplus area of the property held by Udham Singh son of Bakhtawar Singh. The petitioner who is holding the power of attorney of his father submitted representations to the authorities for allowing him to deposit the amount but the same was not being accepted by the authorities on the ground that in the revenue records it was mentioned that some litigation was pending in the Supreme Court. A reference has been made to the revenue record (Annexure-P.2) that is placed on record. It is also submitted that the petitioner has inquired about the matter and he has found that no litigation is pending against the allotted land. Therefore, he made a representation in April 2005 to respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Samrala, District Ludhiana with the request that the money be allowed to be deposited lump-sum along with the challan forms. Another representation dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure-P.4) was also moved. The petitioner verified from the office of Financial Commissioner also and he came to know that no litigation was pending in respect of the land allotted to the father of the petitioner. As such, he again approached the authorities vide application dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure-P.5). Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to supply him information whether any litigation was pending qua the allotted land and that he may be allowed to deposit the amount for the allotted land. On 28.11.2007, the petitioner moved an application to the designated Public Information Officer for supplying the necessary information in respect of the pending cases qua the allotted land. On 6.2.2008, the petitioner received communication (Annexure-P.6) from respondent No.3-Sub Divisional Officer-cum-Collector, Samrala informing him that according to C.W.P. No.14691 of 2009 [3] the records available, no case was pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the High Court, the Financial Commissioner Revenue, Punjab or any other Court in respect of this land. The information of the Patwari was based on the fact that he has never received any summons from any Court nor the records were ever summoned. Thereafter, the petitioner has been requesting the SDO-cum-Collector, Samrala (respondent No.3) to get the balance instalments deposited from him. However, there has been inaction. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allotment was made to Manorath Singh -the father of the petitioner as far back as 23.1.1980 (Annexure-P.1). Land measuring 46 Kanals 7 Marlas was allotted to him. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the payment as was required to be made was ever made. The reference to the revenue records (Annexure-P.2) is absolutely misplaced. The same is not only illegible but it does not depict as to what is the nature of the said record. Besides, a perusal of Annexure-P.2 shows that in respect of the land measuring 46 Kanals 7 Marlas mutation No.4778 was sanctioned and thereafter it is mentioned “illegible allotment to Manorath Singh slip No.37 at Supreme Court”. This, according to the learned senior counsel shows that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. However, according to the petitioner's own showing the column is illegible and merely because Supreme Court is mentioned, it does not mean that some litigation was pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioner in fact is required to show that he had deposited the amount or at least offered to deposit the same soon after the allotment was made on 23.1.1980 in favour of the father of the petitioner. Rather, the position is that after the allotment on 23.1.1980, the first representation that has been filed by the petitioner is of C.W.P. No.14691 of 2009 [4] April 2005 (Annexure-P.3). Thereafter, another representation is dated 23.12.2005 (Annexure-P.4). The petitioner then submitted an application dated 18.7.2007 (Annexure-P.5) for giving information under the Right to Information Act. On 6.2.2008 the petitioner received communication (Annexure-P.6). The petitioner then submitted an application dated 16.2.2009 (Annexure-P.7) for allotment of land in favour of his father. The petitioner then again submitted an application dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure- P.8) for allotment of land in favour of his father. Therefore, after 1980 till April 2005 according to the petitioner's own showing he has not taken any step to deposit the amount that was required to be paid in terms of the allotment letter dated 23.1.1980 (Annexure-P.1). Therefore, at this stage to revive the stale claim would be wholly inappropriate. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1974 SC 2271, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Art.226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Art. 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters." In view of the above, the petitioner cannot seek enforcement of a stale C.W.P. No.14691 of 2009 [5] claim. Besides, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner had offered the price that was required to be deposited. The allegations of litigation pending in the Supreme Court are vague. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to revive a dead claim after a lapse of 29 years. Accordingly, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. October 5, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp* NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not:Yes/No