Shyam Singh vs Dda & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1765 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Decision: 18.04.2013

+      W.P.(C) No.7960/2011

       SHYAM SINGH                               ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Counsel for the petitioner

                         versus

       DDA & ANR.                               ..... Respondents
                         Through: Ms.Lekha Mrija, Advocate for DDA.
                         Mr.Sanjay Pathak, Advocate for
                         Respondent No.2/GNCTD.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                         JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. The land of the petitioner having been acquired for planned

development of Delhi, he applied for allotment of an alternative plot to him

as per the policy of the respondents, vide application dated 21 st August,

2006. The grievance of the petitioner is that no recommendation has so far

been made by Govt. of NCT of Delhi to DDA for allotment of an alternative

plot to him.

W.P.(C) No.7960/2011 page 1 of 4

2. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 Shri Sanjay Kumar Pathak

states that the application of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot

is yet to be considered by the Govt. though it is not disputed that his land

was acquired for planned development of Delhi and he had applied for

allotment of an alternative plot on 21.8.2006 under the Scheme for Large

Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi notified by

the Govt. of India, vide its letter dated 2nd May, 1961. According to the

learned counsel, the aforesaid Scheme is a welfare measure meant to

rehabilitate those agriculturists whose land is acquired by the Govt. for

Planned Development of Delhi. He relies upon the Full Bench decision of

this Court in Ramanand vs. UOI & Ors. AIR 1994 Delhi 29 holding

therein that a person whose land has been acquired for Planned

Development of Delhi has no absolute right to allotment of an alternative

plot, though he is eligible to be considered for such an allotment under the

Scheme of the Govt.

3. It is also stated in the reply filed by respondent No.2 that vide Circular

dated 22nd November, 2006, Central Vigilance Commission had issued

W.P.(C) No.7960/2011 page 2 of 4 guidelines and directed adherence to the Principle of first-cum-first serve.

Consequently, an exercise was undertaken to streamline the record and the

record has already been prepared and uploaded on the website of the

Department. One list for the period from 1979-2000 contains the names of

1400 applicants whereas the other list contains 8025 names of persons who

applied during the period 2001 onwards. The name of the petitioner figures

at Serial No.5649 of the said seniority list prepared by the Govt. for the

period 2001 onwards. The case of the petitioner, according to the respondent

is to be considered on maturity of his turn in the seniority list maintained by

them. For the present, the respondents are considering the applications for

the period 1979 to 2000. The applications for subsequent period would be

taken up later.

4. No fault can be found with the policy of the Govt. in adhering to the

principle of first-cum-first served. Those who approached first for allotment

of alternative plots must necessarily get preference over those who

approached later for such an allotment. No preference to the petitioner,

therefore, can be directed since any such direction would be discriminatory

W.P.(C) No.7960/2011 page 3 of 4 to those who are already waiting for their turn to mature. Since the term of

the petitioner has not matured as yet, no direction can be issued to the

respondent Govt. of NCT to recommend an allotment for him.

5. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the

directions that the request of alternative plot in the name of the petitioner

shall be duly processed, as per the policy of the respondents on maturity of

his turn. If there is any deficiency in the documents filed by the petitioner,

the same shall be conveyed to him within four weeks of his turn maturing

and his application being taken up for processing the deficiency, if any,

shall be removed by the petitioner within four weeks thereafter.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J.

APRIL 18, 2013
Ks




W.P.(C) No.7960/2011                                      page 4 of 4