Dev Lal Yadav vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Mahendra Dubey, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Vikram Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Mr. H.B.Agrawal, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4.

This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4610 of 2022, dismissing the writ petition on the ground of gross delay in preferring the writ petition.

The Special Area Development Authority (for short, the SADA), Bhilai, had allotted a plot of land measuring 50X60 sq.ft = 3,000 sq.ft. situated at Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh, under the Motilal Nehru Nagar Awasiya Yojna, by letter dated 20.11.1995 to the appellant on payment of a premium amount of Rs. 39,000/- plus 2% as ground rent, i.e. Rs. 780/-. Though, the order of allotment did not indicate any specific period of time within which the amount was to be paid, the appellant in the writ petition, amongst others, in paragraph 8.2, has accepted that owing to some financial difficulties, he could not deposit the premium amount within the given time.

On a query of the Court as to what was the specified time, Mr. Dubey submits that the normal practice in such cases is that the amount is required to be paid within two months and that is how stand is taken in the writ petition that the amount is not paid within the given time.

It is relevant to note that SADA, Bhilai was abolished in the year 1998 and in its place, Municipal Corporation, Bhilai came into being.

The appellant had filed an application on 24.10.2000 to the Municipal Corporation, Bhilai stating that he could not deposit the premium amount pursuant to the letter dated 20.11.1995 and requesting the respondent No.3 to grant one opportunity to make the payment of premium amount, and on receipt of such application, a resolution was adopted on 02.07.2004 permitting the appellant to deposit the aforesaid amount, but no letter was issued enabling the appellant to deposit the premium amount. There were correspondences between the respondent No. 1 and 3 in connection with the aforesaid, but no letter was issued to the appellant to enable him to deposit the aforesaid premium amount and it is in that circumstance, the appellant had approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondents, and more particularly, respondent No. 3, to expedite the proceedings for allotment of the plot of land to the appellant and to enable him to execute the lease deed after deposit of the premium amount.

On the own admission of the appellant he could not deposit the premium amount within a period of two months from 20.11.1995, i.e., the date of letter of allotment and after about 27 years of such allotment, the appellant has approached this Court, amongst others, for permitting him to deposit the premium amount.

The learned Single Judge, in the above background has observed in paragraphs 4 and 5, as follows:

“4. This Court at the outset is of the opinion that the writ petition is highly belated and for the inordinate delay, there is no plausible explanation provided by the petitioner from the dates which are reflected in the pleadings, the first allotment of land was made in the year 1995 i.e around 27 years ago. Subsequently, a resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004, which again is around 18 years ago. A reminder resolution thereafter has been passed in the year 2012, which again is more than 10 years from now.

Under the given factual backdrop, the present writ petition at this juncture at this belated stage would not be maintainable at all and thus the present writ petition, since it suffers from delay laches, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay.”

We are not persuaded to take a view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge and therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.