Shri Mange Ram vs Dda And Others
2010 Latest Caselaw 3233 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C.) No. 2819/2006

%                  Date of Decision: 13th JULY, 2010


#     SHRI MANGE RAM                                            .....PETITIONER

!                  Through:    Mr. Som Dutt Sharma, Advocate.

                                      VERSUS

$     DDA & OTHERS                                          .....RESPONDENTS

^ Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

Mr. Sanjay Poddar for the respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not? YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)

The petitioner Shri Mange Ram has filed this writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

"a) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

whereby the respondents No. 1 & 2 may be directed to

allot/recommend an alternative plot in favour of the petitioner in

lieu of his acquired land under the scheme of large scale

acquisition, development of land acquired by respondent No.1 in

the year 1958-59 under Award No. 1938-39;

b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus with

direction to the CBI and/or other appropriate agencies to

investigate and inquire into the matter whereby respondents

either recommended/alloted the plot in favour of third persons, if

it is so deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of

the matter;

c) Give cost incidental to this writ petition in favour of the

petitioner."

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this

writ petition are that the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired

by the Government in the year 1958 vide award No. 1938-39. At that

time, there was a scheme for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of

compulsory acquisition of land of private persons by the Government.

3. The father of the petitioner consequent upon compulsory

acquisition of his land had applied for allotment of an alternative plot and

a recommendation for allotment of an alternative residential plot of 300

sq. yds. at East of Kailash, was made by the concerned department of the

Government in the year 1967. The father of the petitioner died on

13.07.1986.

4. After the death of his father, the petitioner has filed this writ

petition after 20 years of his death for directions to the DDA to allot him

an alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of his land in the year 1958-59

under Award No. 1938-39.

5. Mr. Som Dutt Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, has argued that the late father of the petitioner did not

receive any recommendation letter from the Government recommending

allotment of an alternative plot to him in lieu of compulsory acquisition of

his land. He, therefore, requests that necessary directions may be given

by the court to the respondents for allotment of an alternative plot to the

petitioner in lieu of compulsory acquisition of land of his father.

6. This writ petition is strongly opposed by Mr. Sanjay Poddar and also

by Ms. Shobhana Takiar, appearing on behalf of the respondents, inter

alia on the ground that this writ petition is barred by delay and laches

and also on the ground that recommendation for allotment of an

alternative plot was made by the Government in favour of the father of

the petitioner way back in 1967 and, according to them, the late father of

the petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to allotment of an

alternative plot during his life time though he remained alive for about

thirty years since the date of acquisition of his land. It is submitted that

the petitioner is now estopped by his conduct from raising a dispute after

twenty years of the death of his father for allotment of an alternative plot

in lieu of land acquired by the Government way back in 1958. The record

shows that the petitioner even as per his own showing was fully aware of

the compulsory acquisition of land of his father and his having acquired

the knowledge in 1988 about the recommendation for allotment of an

alternative plot made by the Government in favour of his father but

despite that he choose not to take any step for allotment of an

alternative plot for about twenty years till the filing of the present writ

petition filed in the year 2006. The court cannot ignore the fact that the

allotment letters in respect of alternative plots are sold for consideration

by the allottee of such plots and it appears to the court that the present

petition has been filed by the petitioner as a gross misuse of the legal

machinery by taking undue advantage of the death of his father. Had

there been any substance in the case of the petitioner, he either himself

or through his father could have taken legal action for allotment of an

alternative plot in respect of land of his father acquired by the

Government way back in 1958.

7. In the facts & circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in

this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with Costs quantified

at Rupees One Lakh, 75% of which should be deposited with the Delhi

Legal Services Authority and the balance should go to the respondents in

equal share. This Costs has been imposed by the court keeping in mind

the conduct of the petitioner in filing of frivolous litigation after about fifty

years of acquisition of land of his father taking advantage of his death.

JULY 13, 2010                                      S.N.AGGARWAL, J
'BSR '