JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- This writ petition is directed against an order dated 19.10.99 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Land and Building (ALT), Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi rejecting the application made by the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961, 2. The facts which are not in dispute are that a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act) for acquisition of petitioners land bearing Khasra No. 53/16, measuring one bigha and 4 biswa situated in village Sahibabad, Daulatapur, Delhi. Physical possession was handed over on 15.4.1985 and transferred to MCD on 8.6.1995. An Award was announced on 19.12.1996. 3. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner received land acquisition compensation as determined by the land acquisition A ward on 6.3.1997 and that she applied for allotment of alternative land on 1.7.1998. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.10.1999. The reason for rejection of the petitioners application is that pursuant to a public notice stated to have been issued on 30.11.1993 in the newspaper individuals whose lands had been acquired after 31.12.1998 were required to apply for allotment of an alternative plot latest by 31.1.1994 or "within one year from completion of acquisition proceedings which ever is later." Since in the present case the petitioner received compensation on 6.3.1997, it is contended that the application for alternative allotment should have been submitted latest by 5.3.1998 whereas it was submitted on 1.7.1998. Therefore, the only reason for rejection of the petitioners application for being considered for alternate allotment was that it was "time barred case". 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the so-called public notice dated 30.11.1993 has never been in fact enclosed to the reply filed by the respondent and it is not known whether in fact it was published in the newspaper as contended by the Counsel for respondent. Counsel for the respondent produces the original file which contains a photocopy of a notice in Hindi which appears to have been published in the newspaper. However the date of that publication is not indicated. At best it can be said, on a perusal of the record, that the so-called public notice was actually published only once in a newspaper in 1993. 5. However the date of that publication is not indicated. At best it can be said, on a perusal of the record, that the so-called public notice was actually published only once in a newspaper in 1993. 5. This Court is of the view that the reason adduced by the respondent for not considering petitioner application for allotment of an alternate plot is not tenable. Even earlier this Court had passed an order on 20.10.2003 directing the respondent to consider the petitioners application. Pursuant thereto the respondent rejected the said representation by the impugned order only on the ground that it was “time barred". The so-called public notice is neither a statutory notice nor is a gazetted notice which is presumed to have been known by everyone. On the contrary the notice was published, if at all, in the newspapers only once in 1993. In the circumstances, to contend that someone in 1997 applying for allotment of alternative land should be presumed to know the time limit that is stipulated in a notice printed in the newspaper four years earlier is being unrealistic and impractical. There is nothing so immutable about the time limit set in the notice that the respondent should be precluded from the considering an application which is delayed by about four months. Since this is a time limit set by the respondents themselves, surely in deserving cases like the present, where the applicant cannot be presumed to know of the time limit, such a delay ought to have been condoned. On the contrary the refusal to condone the delay would result in injustice. 6. For all the above reasons, the impugned order dated 29.10.1999 is quashed. The respondents are now directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative land within two months from today and in any event not later than 31.5.2007. The decision on the application will be communicated to the petitioner within 10 days thereafter. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed. Writ Petition allowed.