JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36258 of 2003 for the following reliefs : “(a) To issue a Writ, Order, direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to regularize the house No. 133/165-B, Rattoopurwa, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur Nagar, constructed over plot No. 234-A, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur Nagar, measuring an area of about 760.48 sq. meter, according to the scheme of the Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur for regularization of plot at latest rate. (b) To issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within the time granted by this Hon’ble Court. (c) To issue any such other suitable writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) To award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioner.” 2. The facts, as stated in the writ petition are, that The land of village Juhi Khurd was acquired by Nagar Maha Palika, Kanpur, in the year 1970. The Nagar Maha Palika, Kanpur could not develop the scheme and accordingly, the said scheme merged with the Kanpur Development Authority (for short ‘the KDA’) in the year 1973. As the land stood acquired, but no compensation paid, the land owners of the villages, who were in possession of the land, made constructions of their houses and obtained orders of assessment from Nagar Maha Palika. House numbers were too allotted to these contructions. The petitioner constructed his own house in village Juhi Khurd in Arazi No. 234-A (area 760.48 sq. mts.). In 1981 the house constructed by the petitioner was subjected to Municipal assessment and was allotted house No. 133/165B, Rattoopurwa Juhi Khurd, Kanpur Nagar. 3. As neither the occupation over the land, nor the constructions were regularized, a scheme for regularization of plots and houses was launched in the year 1990 by the KDA. The scheme dated 17.6.1990, 2.2.1991 and 10.3.1991, as publicly notified, have been annexed to the petition. Pursuant to the said scheme, the petitioner deposited a token amount of Rs. 38,000/- on 18.3.1991 and also filed an application for regularization. A copy of receipt is Annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner contends that even though he has completed all the formalities, but inspite of repeated request to the concerned authorities for regularizing his plot/house, nothing has been done. 38,000/- on 18.3.1991 and also filed an application for regularization. A copy of receipt is Annexure 3 to the petition. The petitioner contends that even though he has completed all the formalities, but inspite of repeated request to the concerned authorities for regularizing his plot/house, nothing has been done. 4. We have heard Shri Dev Brat Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents and have examined the records. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner The petitioner contends that the KDA adopted dilatory tactics to keep regularization applications pending inordinately, so that they could regularise the plots on enhanced rates and also charge interest over the current rate from the date of application till the regularization of plot. He cites an example of one Smt. Amola Devi, whose application for regularization was made in the year 1991, but the rate she had to pay was of the year 1999. The petitioner was informed by a letter dated 23.8.2000 that his application for regularization of plot/house is under process and the decision on it would be communicated to him. The petitioner alleges that after the receipt of letter dated 23.8.2000 he visited the office of the respondents on several occasions and also filed several representations to regularise his plot, but of no avail. He submits that the petitioner, being a poor person, with the enhancement of the circle rate every year, his application for regularization of plot is liable to be considered on the then prevailing rates. 6. In the counter-affidavit field on behalf of the KDA it is stated that it had given an offer under the scheme in the year 1990-91, to all such persons, who had made unauthorized constructions over the own land, without obtaining proper sanction of building plan and also to those persons, who had unauthorizedly occupied the acquired land of the KDA to get their unauthorized construction regularized on payment of betterment charges and to get their unauthorized possession over KDA land, regularised by payment of regularization charges in accordance with scheme. A token amount was to be deposited as per area in their occupation for getting themselves enrolled for entitlement under the scheme. After the deposit of token money, the balance amount was to be deposited by the applicant, as per terms and conditions of the scheme as publicly notified. A token amount was to be deposited as per area in their occupation for getting themselves enrolled for entitlement under the scheme. After the deposit of token money, the balance amount was to be deposited by the applicant, as per terms and conditions of the scheme as publicly notified. One such rate list was published in Hindi daily newspaper ‘Aaj’ on 16.3.1991, in terms of which the applicant on his calculation made by him had to deposit ¼ amount within a specified period. It is contended by the respondents that the petitioner did not pursue the matter with the KDA; and, on the contrary he filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularise his possession over house No. 133/165B, Rattoopurwa, Juhi Khurd, Kanpur Nagar (area 760.48 sq. mts.). 7. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,23,852.95 p. after deducting an amount of Rs. 38,000/-, which was already deposited. The amount was to be deposited as per his own calculation according to area in possession and the rate advertised by the KDA. The petitioner had deposited only Rs. 38,000/-. He did not submit any proof of having deposited ¼ amount, as indicated above, and thus, the application of the petitioner was not considered for regularization. It is further submitted that in terms of the notices dated 17.6.1990 and 2.2.1991, as published by the KDA, the petitioner was required to pay ¼ amount, as per the rate fixed by the KDA in respect of the area of land in his possession up to 31.3.1991, and the remaining ¾ amount was to be paid by him within a period of three years with 15% interest, in ½ yearly instalments. The petitioner neither deposited the ¼ amount up to 31.3.1991, nor deposited the instalments of the balance amount. 8. In the rejoinder-affidavit it has been asserted that the land over which the petitioner has constructed his house does not belong to the KDA and that it was never acquired by it and as such the KDA has no right over the same. The petitioner claims that he is not in unauthorized occupation of the land. He further claims that to protect his plots, he had deposited Rs. The petitioner claims that he is not in unauthorized occupation of the land. He further claims that to protect his plots, he had deposited Rs. 38,000/- as ¼ amount of development/betterment charges as per the advertisement of the KDA and could not deposit the remaining development/betterment charges, as it was only optional. He further submits that no compensation has been paid to him for the acquisition of the plot in dispute. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has deposited the token amount as per the scheme of the respondents, the KDA is under a legal obligation to regularise the constructions raised by the petitioner. 10. Per contra, Shri M.C. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as the petitioner did not deposit the entire token amount alongwith the scheduled rate of land, hence on mere deposit of Rs. 38,000/- he cannot claim any indefeasible right to claim a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application for regularization on the then prevailing rates. 11. The KDA, with a view to regularise certain unauthorized constructions over the acquired land belonging to either KDA or of Gram Samaj, publicly notified a scheme for regularization on 17.6.1990. A prominent feature of the scheme was that the same was applicable only in relation to such class of persons, who were in unauthorized possession up to 30.4.1990. The benefit of the said scheme was available only in respect to residential plots. The applicants were required to submit applications for regularization up to 15.7.1990, enclosing therewith a token amount depending upon the area in possession with the applicant. Alongwith the aforesaid token deposit, the applicants were also to deposit the scheduled rate plus 10% interest in reference to the location of the plot. The applicants were to deposit ¼ of the total amount after adjusting the token money deposit before the aforesaid date and the balance amount was to be paid within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the demand letter and the remaining ¾ amount in a period of three years, in six 6 monthly instalments alongwith 15% interest. 12. 12. The scheme was modified on 2.2.1991 wherein it provided that if an applicant, who is in unauthorized possession of the land either belonging to the KDA or to the Gaon Sabha or if it has been declared excess in the urban ceiling or urban zamindari proceedings, then in case the applicant deposits the token amount alongwith scheduled rate of the plot with 10% interest, if ¼ of the net amount so calculated by the applicant after adjusting the token amount, is deposited with the KDA within the financial year 1990-91 and the balance ¾ amount is deposited within a period of three years in six 6 monthly instalments alongwith 15% interest, then irrespective of the date of final decision on regularization, the benefit of rates of the year 1990-91 would be available. It further provided that in case the applicant does not deposit ¼ amount within the current financial year, then the scheduled rates applicable would be such, which are prevalent at the time of decision. The scheme was modified on 31.3.1991 providing the ¼ amount so calculated by the applicant was to be deposited on or before 31.3.1991, and that on deposit of ¼ amount the KDA could not be compelled to accept the claim of the applicant. 13. The petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 38,000/- on 18.3.1991. The petitioner alleges to have filed an application for regularization on 18.3.1991 itself, but the same has not been annexed by him in any pleadings filed by him. 14. As per the scheme the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,23,852.95p. after deducting an amount of Rs. 38,000/-, which was already in deposit. The petitioner was required to deposit ¼ of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,23,852.95 p., which he did not deposit in accordance with the scheme. The statement of fact in para 8 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioner did not deposit ¼ amount has not been controverted in the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is only stated that he had deposited Rs. 38,000/-, as being ¼ amount of development/betterment charges. 15. There is nothing on record to indicate that after making the ¼ deposit on 18.3.1991, the petitioner sincerely pursued the matter of regularization with the respondents. 38,000/-, as being ¼ amount of development/betterment charges. 15. There is nothing on record to indicate that after making the ¼ deposit on 18.3.1991, the petitioner sincerely pursued the matter of regularization with the respondents. The petitioner finally woke up after almost ten years on 31.1.2001, when he is alleged to have submitted a representation requesting the authorities to pass orders on his application for regularization. The petitioner has not complied with conditions in the scheme by failing to depositing ¼ amount of Rs. 2,23,852.95 p, within the stipulated period and violated the essential term of the scheme. On these facts the KDA was not obliged to pass any orders on the application filed by the petitioner. There was complete inaction on the part of the petitioner in ventilating the said issue for almost eleven years. Now it is too late in the day to ask the respondent-authority to pass orders on the application for regularization filed by the petitioner. The conditions of eligibility and consequences of failure to comply with the same were evident in the scheme. 16. The regularization of unauthorized occupation and constructions made without sanction of building plan is a serious issue of violation of rights of general public. The public land should not be allowed to be usurped by unauthorized persons. As the validity of the same is not questioned before us, we refrain from commenting on the same. The petitioner having committed default in the first deposit itself, is not entitled to claim any relief in equity. The scheme was for a limited duration and once the period has expired, the petitioner in the absence of any provision under the scheme has lost the rights to claim regularization of his occupation and constructions over the plot. 17. No other plea has been raised before us. 18. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————