$-* IN THE HIGH COT]RT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 45. -r W.P.(O No. 7050 of 2010 ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. JAIPAL VCTSUS GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Kathuria for Ms. Sangeeta Chandra" Advocate for DDA. AND 46. *- w.P.(o No. 7055 of 2oto PRATAP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR '.... Respondents Through: Ms. Priyanka Kathuria for Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for DDA. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 25.10.2010 CM Nos. 13999 & 14000 of 2010 Exernptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of. W.P.(O Nos. 7050 & 7055 of 2010 1. In both these petitions the prayer is for a direction to the Respondents to allot alternative land to the Petitioners in lieu of the land acquired from them under a land acquisition Award made more than two decades ago in 1986- 87. What is common to both these petitions is that the applications of the w.p.(c) Nos.7050 & 7055 of 2010 Poge 7 of 2 o 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 '.c Petitioners for allotrnent of an alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land, was rejected in 1988 itself and that rejection was not challenged by either of them. According to the Petitioners, the rejection was on the ground that the land was not being used for planned development purposes. 2.It is stated that sometime in May 2009 the Petitioners came to know that the acquired land was being used for certain planned development purposes. According to the Petitioners this gave them a fresh cause of action to seek .allotment of alternative land. 3. In the considered view of this Court, the petitions are barred by laches The rejection of the Petitioners' application took place in 1988. The mere fact that the Petitioners came to know sometime in May 2009;that their land was being used for the pu{poses of planned developtnent, cannot give them a fresh cause of action. 4. The petitions are dismissed. \ € S. MURALIDHAR, J ocroBER 25, 2010 dn W.P.(C) Nos. 7050 & 705s of 2o7o Page 2 of 2