JUDGMENT By the Court.—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. 2. 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 alongwith large number of other plots. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. In view of the aforesaid this Court is to consider the matter. 6. 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. 7. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. In the recent judgment given by the Apex Court in case of C Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining and another, AIR 2009 SC 264 , it has been clearly said that claim after lapse of 18-20 years if that is found to be stale is not to be given a fresh lease of life. A dead claim is not to be permitted to be revived or is to be made alive. A dead claim is not to be permitted to be revived or is to be made alive. 11. The matter before the Apex Court was in respect to an employee who was terminated from service and after a silence of about 18 years when no record is available regarding his previous service fresh chapter started from filing a representation in the year 2000 which was rejected by the authority but the learned Single Judge allowed his appeal which was reversed in an intra Court appeal and that was affirmed by the Apex Court. 12. The observation as made by the Apex Court in respect to direction to decide the representation and at the same time in respect to consideration of a claim which has become stale and is time barred can be quoted at this place : 6. “The Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such applications/petitions (many a time even without notice to other side) without examining the matter on merits, with a direction to consider and dispose of the representation. The Courts/Tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assumes that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representations does not involve any decision on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realise the consequences of such a direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and accepted the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to ‘consider’. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay proceeding the representation and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar or limitation or the latches gets obliterated or ignored.” 7. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In this manner, the bar or limitation or the latches gets obliterated or ignored.” 7. Every representation to the Government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representation unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim. 8. When a direction is issued by a Court/tribunal to consider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the Court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of ‘acknowledgment or a jural relationship’ to give rise to a fresh cause of action. 10. We are constrained to refer to the several facts of the issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for ‘consideration’. If the representation is on the face of it is stale or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, Courts should desist from directing ‘consideration’ of such claims. 11. The present case is a typical example of ‘representation and relief’. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the termination. A stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service. In the representations which he makes in 2000 he claims that he should be taken back to service. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated 4.9.2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits by referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action . As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was proceeded by due inquiry and declares the termination as illegal. As noticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim, as if it was a live claim made in time, finds fault with the respondents for not producing material to show that termination was proceeded by due inquiry and declares the termination as illegal. When a person approaches a Court after two decades after termination the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned Single Judge dealt with the matter as if he the appellant had approached the Court immediately after the termination. All this happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to ‘consider’ a representation relating to a stale issue.” 13. If a person is sleeping over his rights for the last forty year then this Court is not to direct a de-novo trial as for such a long any authority cannot be expected to keep track of all the papers. Otherwise also in view of the stipulation in the allotment letter which is Annexure-1 to the writ petition, as before this Court the document in respect to any deposit, completion of formalities is not there the allotment will be treated to have been cancelled. 14. It has been said time and again that law/Court is to help a litigant who has a watch over his rights/interest and a person who is so casual, unconcern in respect to his claim and has permitted the claim having become barred on account of long lapse or otherwise then the scrutiny in the past after unusual gap in absence of the relevant record of which the litigant may be able to take advantage is not to be given. If this view is not taken then there will be no end and finality of the litigation and it will be an endless process. 15. If the dispute/claim was finally decided or was put to a rest by the conduct of a party then after unusual and unexplained delay that is not to be revived and the things which has taken rest is to be permitted to take rest as their revival may lead to serious complication . Otherwise also by conduct of a person by estoppal and acquiescence the issue can be deemed to be closed and thus that is not to be disturbed as that can have no justification either in the facts or in law. 16. Otherwise also by conduct of a person by estoppal and acquiescence the issue can be deemed to be closed and thus that is not to be disturbed as that can have no justification either in the facts or in law. 16. On these facts, if the authority has chosen to proceed with the fresh allotment of land in dispute alongwith other plots then no exception can be taken to it. 17. For the reasons given above this Court is not to issue the writ, as prayed. 18. Writ petition accordingly fails and it is dismissed. —————