IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reservedon: January22"^*, 2010 Decisionon: February23'^^ 2010 W.P.(C) No. 9485 of 2007 TULSIBAJAJ Petitioner Through: Mr. N.S. Dalai, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Sahay with Mr. Abhisek Aggarwal, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowedtosee thejudgment? / O 2. To be referredto theReporteror not? " 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. The prayer in this petition is for a direction to the Respondent to allot a land in lieu of land allotted to the grandfather of the Petitioner in Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi way back in 1962, but it was not handed over in view of the encroachment thereon. 2. It is stated that Shri Inder Bhan was the uncle of the father of the WritPetition(Civil)No. 9485/2007 Page1 of4 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified Petitioner. He migrated from Pakistan during partition. A land in Khasra Nos. 22/3, 22/8, 23/6, 23/15 and 23/16 in the revenue Estate of Village Jharoda Majra Burari, Delhi was allotted to him as evacuee property. 3. Before the possession of the land in question could be handed over to him, Shri Inder Bhan died. After his death, there was a dispute concerning the succession to his estate. This continued till 1984. An order was passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the year 1984 under which the Petitioner's father, Shri Ram Lai, was held to be entitled to the estate of Shri Inder Bhan in terms of the Will executed by Shri Inder Bhan. Sanad was also ordered to be issued in the name ofthe fatherofthe Petitioner.On 4^*^ April 1989,mutationof the land in question, in the name of the Petitioner's father, was also sanctioned. 4. The case of the Petitioner is that thereafter when the Petitioner's father and he went to inspect the land it was found to be encroached upon. It is stated that the Petitioner's father kept writing to the authorities for removal of the encroachment but nothing was done. The Petitioner'sfather died on 13"^ July 2007. Thereafterthe present writ petition has been filed. 5. In the counter affidavit an objection has been taken to the WritPetition (Civil)No. 9485/2007 Page2 of4 maintainability of the petition on the ground of laches. It is pointed out that although Shri Inder Bhan's claim was verified and determined on 14^^ December 1966, there was no action taken thereafter for almost 17 years. The Sanadwas issuedon 21®^ August 1984 in name of the Petitioner's father. Again, there was no action till the next representationwas made on 12^^February1987.Mutationwas granted on 5^*^ April 1989. For another 18 years till 26^*^ April 2007 the authorities were not approached. It is stated that in the case of evacuee property like that of Shri Inder Bhan possession is normally handed over at the time of issuance of Sanad which in this case was on 21®' August 1984. Therefore, the encroachment, if any, is the creation of the predecessors of the Petitioner. The records themselves are very old and would not be traceable. 6. Along with the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner has enclosed copies of the visitor's passes issued to the Petitioner's father in the years 1981, 1982, 1984 and in 1991. It is sought to be urged that this is proof of the Petitioner's father having been pursued the matter with the authorities. Reference is made to the copies of Khasra Girdhawari of the Village Jharoda Majra Burari which shows the name of the owner as Inder Bhan. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance upon the judgments in Delhi Rohtas Light Railway Compfiny Limited v. District Board Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCR 155j Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9485/2007 Page 3 of 4 \ )3). and Ram Chand v. Union ofIndia (1994) 1 SCC 44 to urge that the ! I delay and laches ought to be condoned in the facts and circumstances I I of the case. 7. The burden in the instant case is on the Petitioner to explain the laches in following up the matter with the authorities and is approaching this Court for relief There is no document to show that any representation was made in all these years by the Petitioner's m predecessorsseekingpossessionof the plot in question.The fact of the matter is that the Sanad was issued in August 1984, the mutation was effectedon 4^*^ April 1989 and the presentpetitionhas been filed only in December 2007. 8. This Court finds that the decisions relied upon by counsel for the Petitioner turned on their own facts and do not help the case of the Petitioner. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, this petition is dismissed. FEBRUARY 23,2010 rk S. MURALIDHAR, J. WritPetition(Civil)No. 9485/2007 Rage4 of4