Citation : 2010 Latest Caselaw 5776 Del
Judgement Date : 20 December, 2010
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No.1201/2010
Date of Decision: December 20, 2010
SH. PARDEEP KUMAR AND ANR ... Petitioner
through Mr.B S Maan with Mr. Jitin
Tewathia, Mr. Jai Prakash, Mr. Anil Maan
Advocates
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents
through Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate
for respondent no.2.
Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the 'Digest'? No
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
The land of the petitioner's father who has since died, which was
situated in Village Maidan Garhi was acquired under the Land
Acquisition Act in the year 1980. The owners of the land were entitled
to a plot of land in lieu of acquisition under the Scheme of Large Scale
Acquisition Disposal and development of Land in Delhi - 1961. In spite
of the Scheme, the case of the father of the petitioner was not
processed for allotment of a plot which forced him to come to this
Court by way of writ petition bearing no. 7219/2005, on which an order
dated February 27, 2006 was passed by this Court directing the Land &
WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 1 Building Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi to initiate
action to process the application which was received way-back in the
month of November, 1987. Pursuant to the direction so passed, the
Land & Building Department vide letter dated July 13, 2006 wrote to
the Commissioner (Land/DDA) recommending the case of the
petitioner's father for allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards.
The DDA instead of taking action on the said recommendation, wrote
back to the Land & Building Department to re-verify the case of the
petitioner's father along with 490 other cases. Since the Land &
Building Department had already sent its recommendation, it wrote
back to the DDA saying that there was no justification for
re-verification of each case, unless there was any specific point of
doubt which required re-verification. The Land and Building
Department thus approved the verification that had already been
made in the case of the father of the petitioner. The father of the
petitioner in the meanwhile died and consequently, mutation in the
name of the petitioner was done by the DDA.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite
of the fact that the land belonging to his father was acquired way-back
in the year 1980 and in spite of the fact that the DDA recommended
his case for allotment of plot on July 13, 2006, the DDA has not allotted
the plot to him while the persons who were much below in priority list
have already been allotted plots.
The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DDA submits
that in view of the stand of the Land & Building Department of the
Government of NCT of Delhi that it has already verified the case of the
petitioner, the DDA will include his name in the 'draw of lots'.
WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under
the Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to a plot in 'Dwarka Residential
Scheme' and that all the persons who were junior to him have been
allotted plots in 'Dwarka Residential Scheme'.
In view of the above, I direct the DDA to include the name of the
petitioner for 'draw of lots' with respect to the 'Dwarka Residential
Scheme' within three months from now.
With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
DECEMBER 20, 2010 PC.
WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 3
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!