S B KISHORE Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-98
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on November 01,1990

S.B.KISHORE Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SUNDARI BALA VS. LT GOVERNOR [LAWS(DLH)-2000-2-93] [REFERRED]
MANGE RAM VS. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES [LAWS(DLH)-2010-9-264] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. PRABIRKUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-2009-5-23] [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN ANEJA VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-1993-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWANTI VS. HUDA [LAWS(P&H)-2001-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
JANAK RAJ VS. CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(P&H)-2000-12-93] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHDEO GOVIND GAWARI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-112] [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS SINGH AND ANR. VS. J.D.A. AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2009-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. BIJOLI CHATTOPADHYAY (MUKHERJEE) & ORS. VS. CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2002-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
JAIPUR NAGAR GRIHA NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITIYAN ASSCN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-1992-7-95] [REFERRED]
STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. VASANTHI VEERASEKARAN [LAWS(SC)-2019-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-575] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Special Leave granted.
(2.)We have heard appellant in person and Mr. R.B. Dattar for the Delhi Administration and Mr. V. B. Saharya for the Delhi Development Authority. The appellant was the owner of certain land which was subjected to acquisition for purposes of development and expansion of Delhi under the preliminary notification of November, 1959 and award was made between 13-2-1962 and 7-2-1973 in instalments. Under the scheme for acquisition then obtaining, the owner of the land, who was losing his property on account of acquisition, was entitled to allotment of a plot of land. There is considerable difference between the appellant on one side, and counsel for the respondents on the other, as to what exactly was the ratio of the area between the land acquired and plot to be allotted.
(3.)Appellant did not lay claim for allotment within a reasonable time and no action was, therefore, taken by the respondents to fulfil their obligation under the scheme. In 1981, the additional compensation was paid to the appellant. It is only thereafter that he made an application for allotment of the land stipulated in the scheme and when that was not given, he approached the Delhi High Court by applying under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction for allotment. The Delhi High Court went into the matter but found that the appellant approached the High Court 19 years after the event, and therefore, dismissed his petition a barred by lashes. That is how this appeal by special leave has been brought before this Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.