Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. - (1.) THE land of the petitioner was acquired vide Award dated 29.3.1962 for Planned Development of Delhi and the petitioner was paid compensation in May and July, 1966. The petitioner applied on 29.5.1995 for allotment of a plot under a Central Govt. Scheme dated 2.5.1961 for such alternative allotment and the petitioner was asked to submit certain documents vide letter dated 15.9.1995. The petitioner submitted the documents on 6.10.1995. Since there was no response, petitioner sent a reminder dated 17.3.1997. The writ petition was filed on 6.1.1999 alleging that the application of the petitioner was not even decided. This is the conspectus of the facts as set out in the writ petition.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 3, it is stated that the petitioner is guilty of "supressovari and suggestion falsi" in view of the fact that the petitioner had made earlier an application on 25.9.1980 which was rejected on 27.5.1982 being time barred since the application has been made almost 18 years later. Another application was made by the petitioner dated 29.5.1995 and in the said application against the column "Whether the applicant has applied earlier for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of this or any other acquired land" it was mentioned 'No'. This application of the petitioner is also stated to have been rejected on 15.4.1999. Respondents 1 and 3 have also stated in the counter that there is no vested right in the petitioner to get an alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired for which compensation has been paid in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rama Nand Vs. DDA,, AIR 1994 Del 29. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that cut of date 15.12.63 has been provided for making of application under the policy and admittedly the petitioner has failed to make the application within time.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the delay in making the application is liable to be condoned and in any case an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to explain the delay before taking on decision on the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.B. Kishore Vs : AIR1991SC90 and of the Division Bench of this Court in CW No.1967/1987, Rattan Singh Vs. Union of India and others decided on 2.11.1989.;