2012 (4) TMI 575 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether while granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1 the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur? Whether the claim of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur for allotment of land was clearly misconceived and was rightly rejected by the Joint Secretary (L&B) Delhi Administration on the ground that he was not the owner of land comprised in khasra No. 70/2?

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of rejection of application for allotment of land.
2. Ownership of the land in question.
3. Consideration of delay in filing the writ petition.

Issue 1: Validity of rejection of application for allotment of land
The case involved an appeal against an order dismissing an appeal against the rejection of an application for the allotment of 1000 sq. yards of land. The husband of respondent No.1 had initially succeeded in getting compensation for the acquired land but later sought an alternative plot. The rejection was based on the grounds that the land in question did not belong to him, as confirmed by the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration. Despite subsequent representations, the rejection was maintained. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing consideration for the allotment, emphasizing the entitlement to compensation and the inadequacy of the reasons for rejection. However, the Division Bench upheld the rejection, emphasizing that ownership needed to be established for allotment, and compensation alone did not prove ownership. The Division Bench found no error in the rejection and set aside the Single Judge's order, ultimately dismissing the writ petition.

Issue 2: Ownership of the land in question
The key point of contention was the ownership of the land in Khasra No.70/2, for which the allotment was sought. The rejection was primarily based on the fact that the applicant was not the owner of the specific land mentioned in the application for allotment. The Sale Deed indicated that the land purchased was from different Khasra numbers, not including No.70/2. The courts emphasized that mere compensation receipt did not establish ownership, and the applicant failed to provide concrete evidence of ownership of the specific land in question. The courts highlighted the need for tangible proof of ownership before mandamus for allotment could be issued, which was lacking in this case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.

Issue 3: Consideration of delay in filing the writ petition
Another crucial aspect was the delay in filing the writ petition, which was raised during the appeal process. The courts noted that the writ petition was filed almost four years after the rejection of the initial application for allotment. The delay was considered significant, and the High Court could not entertain belated claims without a valid explanation. The courts highlighted that subsequent representations did not justify ignoring the substantial delay, especially when the authorities had reiterated the initial rejection decision. The delay in filing the petition was a crucial factor in the dismissal of the writ petition, along with the lack of ownership proof for the land in question.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench, ultimately dismissing the writ petition. The decision emphasized the importance of establishing ownership for land allotment, the significance of tangible evidence in proving ownership, and the impact of delay in filing legal claims.