Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged delayed disposal of an application for an alternative plot made by his deceased father in 1989. Held that delay warrants dismissal even if merit existed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~25
SHRI SUSHIL JINDAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate. versus LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Shilpi Chaudhary, Advocates.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA O R D E R % 13.03.2019
By the instant petition, the petitioner seeks to agitate disposal of application for alternative plot that was made by one Mr. Molu Ram in the year 1989. Said Molu Ram, during his lifetime, did not pursue any such application and it is now only after his death that the petitioner, who claims to be the son of Mr. Molu Ram, has filed the instant petition. It is stated that even the father of the petitioner has died. In other words, neither Mr. Molu Ram nor his son chose to pursue any claim against the application purportedly made in the year 1989.
It is high time to entertain such a delayed action even if there was some merit in the said application. Dismissed.
A. K. CHAWLA, J
MARCH 13, 2019 nn
Shri Sushil Jindal
Land and Building Department
A. K. Chawla
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
