Shiv Lal (Deceased) Through Lrs vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 5813 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Reserved on: September 05, 2012
                                    Pronounced on: September 27, 2012

+                          W.P.(C) No. 475/1999

      SHIV LAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Ms. Padmini Gupta, Advocate


                           Versus


      UOI & ORS.                                       ..... Respondents
                           Through:      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak,
                                         Advocate for R-2 & R-4
                                         Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney,
                                         Advocate for R-3/DDA


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                            JUDGEMENT

1. A Mandamus to respondent-DDA to allot alternative plot to petitioner in lieu of acquisition of his land, is sought in this writ petition. Compensation of Rupees five lacs is also claimed for the inordinate delay in making the allotment and on account of illegal rejection of petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot.

2. Way back in December, 1981, petitioner had applied vide application (Annexure-B) for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of acquisition of his land measuring 4 Bighas and 17 Biswas i.e. 4890 sq. yards out of Khasra No. 632-633 in revenue estate of Village-

Peeragarhi, New Delhi. Though respondent-DDA claims that petitioner had not disclosed in the writ petition about rejection of his application for alternate allotment of plot in the year 1973, but it is evident from petitioner's application of 15th December, 1981 (Annexure-A) that petitioner had infact disclosed that his application for alternate allotment made in the year 1973 was rejected, as it was made in his name and thereafter in the year 1981, application (Annexure-A) was made on behalf of the firm- M/s Raja Ram Brij Lal.

3. Respondent vide its Communication of 15th April, 1983 had called upon petitioner to establish his status to apply on behalf of the aforesaid Firm. In July, 1983 petitioner had furnished information sought by respondents and even the additional information sought by respondents, was furnished by petitioner in December, 1983. From January, 1984 till September, 1987 there was a lull. In October, 1987 Amit, son of petitioner, had called upon respondent to allot industrial plot in lieu of acquisition of their land. Respondent vide its Communication of December, 1987 had conveyed to petitioner that since petitioner had not been paid compensation by the Land Acquisition Collector, so allotment of residential/ industrial plot cannot be made to him. In September 1990, February 1991, December 1991, May 1992, July 1992 and in December 1992 petitioner had sent various reminders to respondents to seek alternate allotment of an industrial plot.

4. Fourth Respondent vide its communication of February, 1994 had forwarded application forms of ten odd persons for allotment of industrial plots to respondent-DDA, which included petitioner's

application for allotment of alternate industrial plot also. Thereafter, petitioner had made various Representations and had sent reminders to respondent-DDA to seek allotment of alternate industrial plot during the period from November, 1995 upto June, 1997. Again in November, 1997, petitioner had got a Legal Notice sent to respondents to seek allotment of an alternate industrial plot and damages for the delay in making the allotment, which was followed by another Legal Notice of January, 1998 to respondent-DDA, as in August, 1997 respondent-DDA had informed petitioner that there is no policy to allot alternate industrial plot in lieu of land acquired. This led to filing of the present writ petition in January, 1999.

5. In the counter affidavit filed by respondent-DDA, the stand taken is that this writ petition is hit by delay and latches but in the light of afore-going sequential narration, I find that when respondent- DDA had apprised petitioner in August, 1997 about there being no policy to allot alternate industrial plot, then how can the writ petition filed in January, 1999 be said to be grossly barred by delay and latches, as it is well within period of three years from August, 1997 when cause of action had accrued to file this petition. However, petitioner's silence during intervening period from the year 1973 to 1981 and from the year 1987 to 1990 disentitles him to claim compensation on account of non-allotment of a plot till now because lack of diligence on part of petitioner not to seek legal remedy remains unexplained.

6. It is true that no vested right accrues in favour of petitioner to seek alternate allotment of industrial plot but certainly as per respondent's policy, claim for allotment of residential plot in lieu of

acquisition of petitioner's land, survives for consideration. In the additional counter filed by respondent-DDA in January, 2009 regarding its policy to allot alternate residential plot, it was stated that in the absence of compliance with mandatory requirement of the policy to allot alternate residential plot, was not possible to provide alternate residential plot to petitioner.

7. At the hearing of this petition, when it was put to respondent's counsel as to what was the non-compliance of the policy requirement due to which alternate residential allotment could not be made to petitioner, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Neither it stands disclosed in the additional counter by respondent-DDA as to what was the non-compliance due to which alternate allotment of residential plot could not be made to petitioner.

8. Even in the short affidavit of 23rd April, 2012 filed by respondent-DDA, the stand taken is that this matter was referred to respondent's Lok Adalat where petitioner had agreed for allotment of residential plot in lieu of his ostensible claim for the industrial plot and application forms for allotment of industrial plot forwarded by the fourth respondent to respondent-DDA, were found to be without any particulars of the zone, size, eligibility and seniority of petitioner in allotment list.

9. To say the least, on the aforesaid aspect respondent-DDA ought to have obtained clarification from the fourth respondent and should not have remained silent. Once fourth respondent forwards the name of petitioner and other similarly situated persons to respondent-DDA to be considered for allotment of industrial plot then question of

eligibility is not an issue and respondent-DDA cannot be heard to say that the names forwarded by the fourth respondent to it in February, 1994 were not recommendations. In effect, it was a recommendation though it does not spell out that plot of what size and in which zone is to be alloted. Thus, petitioner succeeds in making out a case only for being considered for allotment of a residential plot and of what size and in which zone it is to be allotted, this respondent- DDA has to see and to obtain clarification in this regard from the fourth respondent. It is true that no right to allotment accrued to petitioner in February, 1994 but right to be considered for allotment of an alternate plot was certainly there, which was prolonged by petitioner by making successive representations / reminders. So, in view of afore-going narration, petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation and if legal heirs of petitioner complies the mandatory requirement for allotment, then allotment of alternate residential plot available be made by respondent-DDA at current cost and not at the cost in the year 1994.

10. In light of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent- DDA to consider petitioner's case for allotment of an alternate residential plot at current cost, by giving an opportunity to petitioner to fulfill the eligibility conditions, regarding which respondent- DDA shall seek clarification from the fourth respondent i.e. Director/ Secretary, Land and Building Department of Government of NCT of Delhi at Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. The needful be done preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from today after affording an opportunity of Representation and hearing to petitioner within two weeks and thereafter to communicate to

petitioner the decision taken in this regard, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if required.

11. No cost or compensation is granted, as petitioner has not been diligent enough to claim the relief sought in this petition.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE September 27, 2012 rs