SHABIHUL HASNAIN,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajan Tripathi, learned Advocate in support of this writ petition, Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel who appears for the development authority and learned Standing Counsel. Prayer in this petition is for quashing the advertisement dated 6.9.2009 published in the daily newspaper Dainik Jagran by which plot No. 613 Block -W Scheme- Juhi, Kanpur is sought to be auctioned along with large number of other plots.
(2.) THE question involved in this petition is that whether after lapse of about forty year, on the facts of the present case the claim of the petitioner is liable to be revived and a direction for its consideration/reconsideration on the merits can be given. Submission is that petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot for construction of a residential house and although petitioner deposited the amount and completed necessary formalities and requested for giving of the possession but that was not done and now the plot is sought to be re-auctioned. Submission is that petitioner made a representation on 8.12.2008 and he reminded about some deposit pursuant to the letter dated 24.7.2009 but no decision has been taken and on account of impugned auction petitioner is to suffer. In view of the aforesaid this court is to consider the matter. Claim of the petitioner is in respect to a particular site which is said to have been allotted to him. There is no dispute about the fact that allotment letter which is the basis of the claim of the petitioner is said to be dated 28.3.1969. Petitioner claims to have deposited some amount in the year 1958. Right from that time, admittedly petitioner did not get possession and he claims to be representing the matter. Neither there is any averment nor there is any document in respect to any representation and the averment of the representation of the first time is in the in December, 2008. Letter of allotment dated 28.3.1969 as stated in para 3 of the writ petition clearly states that from the date of receipt of letter the remaining amount is to be deposited within thirty days. Petitioner was required to file an affidavit in proforma for various purposes. In the last there is clear stipulation that if within the time so allowed in the letter the formalities are not completed then the plot allotted to the petitioner will be deemed to have been cancelled. Neither there is any averment nor there is any document nor there is any receipt to demonstrate that after allotment letter the necessary formalities, as required were completed, besides the deposit. In terms of the allotment letter after expiry of thirty days allotment was to be treated to have been cancelled. What to say the passage of small time, if the date of allotment is 1969 as now we are in 2009, about forty year is going to pass petitioner has neither approached the competent authority nor this court for acceptance of his claim after completion of formalities for delivery of possession although admittedly petitioner did not get the possession and no deed whatsoever was executed in his favour. The representation which is said to have been filed for the first time is of the year 2008. In another representation of the year 2009 reference is there to the letter of the authority dated 24.7.2009 by which certain amount is said to have been demanded but the copy of that letter has not been annexed and otherwise also if that letter is there, after such a lapse, the start of things with a calculated move can also be there and therefore that is not to improve the situation.
(3.) ON these facts, this court is convinced that laying of a claim after forty year speaks in volumes about just an effort to revive the alleged claim which is already dead long back.;