IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10291 of 2009 Date of decision : 24.9.2009 Devi Ram and Others ….. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had taken time to place on record the gift deeds executed in favour of the petitioners. When the case was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allotment letters (Annexures P1 to P9) in fact are the gift deeds and he is not to place any other document on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.2). A further prayer has been made for directing the respondents to get demarcation of the land and deliver possession of the plots CWP No.10291 of 2009 [2] to the petitioners which was allotted by the Haryana Government under the Indira Aawas Yojna Scheme (Scheme” – for short). The petitioners are members of the Scheduled castes and landless labourers. They were allotted plots measuring 100 sq. yards for the construction of the houses during the period 1976 to 1978 under the Scheme. The allotment letters in respect of the nine petitioners and their predecessors- in-interest are placed on record as Annexures P1 to P9. After the allotment of plots, the mutations were sanctioned in favour of the allottees. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the plots measuring 100 sq. yards each were allotted to the petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest about 30 years ago yet the land has not been demarcated and the possession of the plots has not been given to the petitioners in terms of the Scheme, which has been frustrated. The petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest made several requests time and again for demarcation of the land allotted to them and hand over possession of the same to the petitioners so that they may construct their houses. Thereafter, the petitioners served a legal notice dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P10). Despite that no action was taken by the respondents. The petitioners then filed CWP No.9533 of 2008 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of in terms of order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P11). It was directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) shall decide the representation dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P10) of the petitioners. In CWP No.10291 of 2009 [3] consequence of the order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P11) passed by this Court, the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon vide order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12) has decided the representation and rejected the claim of the petitioners, which order is impugned in the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that no demarcation of the plots that were allotted to the petitioners has been done and in the column of possession it is recorded as 'Makbuja Malkan'. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) has wrongly rejected the claim of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12) by observing that the allotment letter as well as the mutation indicated that the plots were specifically demarcated and delivered to the petitioners; besides, the Jamabandi prepared thereafter carried entry in the column of ownership as that of the petitioners and in the column of possession as 'Makbuja Malkan'. It was further held that the petitioners had contravened condition No.2 of the allotment and consequently, the Gram Panchayat Dhankot had passed resolution No.1 dated 22.3.1983 for cancellation of the above allotment. The Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Gurgaon cancelled the same and sanctioned mutation in favour of the State Government vide order dated 22.3.1983. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) has given her findings merely on the basis of entry in the revenue records vide which mutation was entered in CWP No.10291 of 2009 [4] favour of the petitioners and in the column of possession, it is recorded as 'Makbuja Malkan'. In fact no physical possession was handed over to the petitioners despite repeated requests. The possession according to the revenue records was only symbolic possession of the petitioners. It is also submitted that resolution No.1 dated 22.3.1983 passed by the Gram Panchayat for cancellation of the allotment is out of context as the Gram Panchayat had no right to cancel the allotment. The petitioners have also demanded a copy of the said resolution dated 22.3.1983 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Dhankot under the Right to Information Act but the same has not been supplied. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the land comprised in Rectangle No.61 Khasra No.2/1 measuring 3 kanals 4 marlas and Khasra No.2/2 measuring 5 kanals 16 marlas, besides, land in Rectangle No.52 Khasra No.22/2 inter alia was acquired by the State Government in terms of notification dated 16.7.1976 for the allotment of plots. Mutation No.1968 dated 1.5.1978 was sanctioned in favour of the Haryana Government. In fact 89 mutations were sanctioned in favour of the allottees including the petitioners. The said mutations were sanctioned on the basis of allotment letters that were issued. The details of the date of registration and the mutations are appended as Annexure ‘A’ to the order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12). A perusal of Annexure ‘A’ to the order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12) shows the names of allottees, the allotment of land comprised CWP No.10291 of 2009 [5] in the Rectangle/Khasra number, the copy of the allotment letter and date, the mutation numbers sanctioned and the cancelled mutation numbers with date. A perusal of the said chart shows that the allotment in favour of Om Parkash (petitioner No.6) has not been cancelled. Besides, allotment in favour of Lekh Ram (petitioner No.7) was earlier cancelled on 25.3.1983. Thereafter, he was again allotted land on 29.3.1983 and the subsequent allotment has not been cancelled. In respect of the petitioners No.1 to 5, 8 and 9, the mutation in their favour had been cancelled on 25.3.1983 i.e. almost about 25 years earlier to the submission of the legal notice dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P10). In other words, the petitioners No.1 to 5, 8 and 9 have remained dormant from the date of cancellation of the mutation on 25.3.1983 to the date of issue of the legal notice dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure P10). As per condition No.2 of the allotment letter, the allottees were to build their residential houses on the plot within a period of 12 months from the date of handing over the possession. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land had not been demarcated is not tenable as the Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon (respondent No.2) in her order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure P12) considered the said contention. It was noticed that a perusal of the allotment letter as well as the mutation indicated that out of the total land acquired out of the Khasra numbers mentioned above, plots were specifically demarcated on an area of 100 sq. yards each and specifically CWP No.10291 of 2009 [6] demarcated plots were delivered to the petitioners. It was further observed that the details of the specific khasra numbers after sub division of the said land and its demarcation allotted to the petitioners had been provided in Annexure ‘A’, Therefore, the demarcation of the land, it was observed, was clearly implied in the allotment letter as well as mutations. It was further observed that the Jamabandis prepared thereafter carried the entries in the column of ownership as that of the petitioners and in the column of possession as 'Makbuja Malkan' meaning thereby possession was that of the petitioners. In fact the allotment had been cancelled as the petitioners had contravened the condition No.2 of the allotment regarding construction of residential houses within a period of one year. Consequently, the Gram Panchayat had passed resolution No.1 dated 22.3.1983 for cancellation of the above allotment. On the basis of the resolution, the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade, Gurgaon cancelled the same and sanctioned the mutations in favour of the State Government vide order dated 25.3.1983. The petitioners did not file any appeal against the order of the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade and the said order had acquired finality due to passage of time of over 25 years. In the circumstances, the cancellation in respect of the petitioners was effected as far back as 25.3.1983. Therefore, the claim even otherwise of the petitioners is stale. A perusal of the allotment letters (Annexures P1 to P9) shows specific area of land measuring 100 sq. yards was allotted separately to CWP No.10291 of 2009 [7] each of the allottees. Besides, separate mutation on the basis of the same were sanctioned in favour of the respective allottees. It is well-known that possession follows the title and therefore, the allotted area is deemed to be possessed by the owner who is recorded as such in the revenue records. In the circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the land in question was not demarcated is devoid of any merit. The contention that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction is also not tenable as the said resolution was passed on 22.3.1983. It is in fact a stale claim that has been sought to be revived by making a representation on 5.2.2008 (Annexure P10) and thereafter, obtaining an order dated 27.5.2008 (Annexure P11) for decision of the representation. Otherwise, nothing has been shown on record as to whether the cancellation of mutation effected in favour of the allottees on 25.3.1983 was assailed by way of appeal. A stale claim cannot be revived by filing a representation. The petition in fact is highly belated. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 it was observed as follows :- “It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 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 CWP No.10291 of 2009 [8] and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 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. The petitioner’s petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in limine. Entertaining such petitions is a waste of time of the Court. It clogs the work of the Court and impedes the work of the Court in considering legitimate grievances as also its normal work. We consider that the High Court was right in dismissing the appellant’s petition as well as the appeal.” In view of the above, the writ petition is highly belated and the same cannot confer a fresh lease of life by merely filing a representation. In the circumstances, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 24, 2009 amit