Yudhisthir Ghrami v. The Government Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 78 of 2017 • Yudhisthir Ghrami S/o Late Kunjlal, Aged About 65 Years R/o Subhash Nagar, Thana Ramanujganj, Civil And Revenue District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Government Of India Through: The Department Of Rehabilitation, Land And Building Department, B Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate New Delhi

2. The State Of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Department Of Rehabilitation, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, (Chhattisgarh)

3. The Collector, District, Balrampur Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh)

4. Inspector General Of Police, Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, (Chhattisgarh)

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Balrampur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate For State :

Shri Manish Nigam, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Order On Board 04/05/2017

1. Heard.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to respondents to provide an additional 2.25 acres of land. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a refugee who suffered migration at the time of independence. It is submitted after the migration, the petitioner started residing in India since 1964 and he had made an application for grant of rehabilitation package and as late as in 1996, the petitioner was provided with a land ad-measuring 2.26 acres,

whereas the petitioner was entitled to an additional package of 2.25 acres. Till date the said relief has not been given to the petitioner, therefore, now the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. Learned State counsel opposes on the submission that petition is filed after delay and laches.

4. Though, its a case where the petitioner seeking settlement under appropriate rehabilitation scheme prepared for refugee, at this stage I am not inclined to issue any direction particularly taking into consideration that in the year 1996 petitioner was provided land admeasuring 2.26 acres. If the petitioner had any grievance, he was required to approach the Court within reasonable time. This petition has been filed 21 years after allotment of 2.26 acres of land to the petitioner that too without any proper explanation. Therefore, only on the ground of delay and laches, this petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) Judge Kamde