Lekh Ram vs Land And Building Department And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1806 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                      Date of Decision: 22.04.2013

+      W.P.(C) 2118/2013
       LEKH RAM
                                                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr A.L. Verma and Mr Amit
                                       Rana, Advs.
                          versus

       LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ORS
                                                                  ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Ms Manika Tripathy Pandey and Mr.
                                       Ashutosh Kaushik, Advs for R-3/DDA
                                       Ms Jhum Jhum Sarkar, Adv. for R-1 and 2

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

                          JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The agricultural land of the petitioner having been acquired for planned development of Delhi, he applied to Government of NCT of Delhi for allotment of alternative plot as per its scheme for Large Scale Acquisition of Land in Delhi notified on 2.5.1961. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he applied for allotment of an alternative plot way back in the year 1996, no recommendation has so far been made by Government of NCT of Delhi to DDA for such allotment.

2. The learned counsel appearing for Government of NCT of Delhi states on instructions that the turn of the petitioner for consideration of his application for allotment of alternative plot having matured, his application is under scrutiny and

will be taken up for consideration as soon as the scrutiny is over and deficiencies, if any, found in the case are removed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since there has been abnormal delay on the part of the respondent Government of NCT of Delhi in making recommendation for allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner, the Court may straightaway direct allotment within a time-bound manner, instead of directing decision on his application pending with Government of NCT of Delhi. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in W.P© No.4043/2008 decided on 8.7.2009.

4. I have carefully examined the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the above referred case, the father of the petitioner died intestate on 30.1.1994 leaving behind three sons and six daughters. The petitioner before this Court claimed that all other legal heirs had released their respective shares in the alternative plot, in his favour by virtue of a registered relinquishment deed dated 6.6.2001. In its counter affidavit, Government of NCT of Delhi stated that one Mr. Raj Singh Malik, brother of the petitioner, had addressed a protest letter dated 29.8.2002 to them alleging therein that the relinquishment deed submitted by the petitioner was a forged and fabricated document and that he had not relinquished his share in the alternative plot in favour of the petitioner. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that it was for that reason that the respondent could not proceed further in the matter. It would thus be seen that the only ground given by the Government of NCT of Delhi in its counter affidavit, for not processing the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot was the protest letter sent to them by his brother Raj Singh Malik. In the above referred case, considering the objections made by Mr. Raj Singh Malik, a concession was given by none other than the counsel for the petitioner, that the allotment could be

made to all the legal representatives of late Shri Mohan Lal Malik, father of the petitioner. It was in these circumstances that the Court directed allotment of plot to all the legal heirs of late Shri Mohan Lal Malik. On the other hand, in the case before this Court, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent - Government of NCT of Delhi is that a large number of applications have been received by them for making recommendations to DDA for allotment of alternative plot to the persons whose lands have been acquired for planned development of Delhi and infrastructure available with them being limited, it has not been possible for them to consider all such applications made so far.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent- Government of NCT of Delhi stated that all such applications pending with them are being taken by them for consideration strictly in the order of seniority, as per the date of receipt of such applications by them and the status of those applications has been made available on their website. Two lists have been prepared - one in respect of applications received till the year 2000 and the other in respect of the applications received after the year 2000. She further states that for the present, they are considering only those applications which they had received upto the year 2000 and which have been included in the first list prepared for this purpose.

6. It is also not in dispute that there are a number of persons who have been recommended allotment of alternative plot by Government of NCT of Delhi, but have not been made allotment so far by the DDA. The persons who submitted the application earlier than the petitioner and in whose cases recommendations have already been made to DDA, must necessarily be given precedence over the petitioner, who submitted the application later and in whose case no recommendation has so far been made for allotment of alternative plot. There is no way the petitioner can be given precedence in allotment over those who have

already been recommended and are waiting allotment by DDA.N preference over those people can be granted to the petitioner merely because they are not before the Court, whereas the petitioner has decided to approach the Court.

7. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the directions that the scrutiny of the application of the petitioner, which otherwise has matured for consideration, will be completed by the respondent at its turn, within a period of eight weeks from today and the objections, if any, shall be communicated to the petitioner within four weeks thereafter. Deficiency, if any, shall be removed by the petitioner within four weeks on receipt of communication in this regard from the respondent. Appropriate decision on the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot shall be taken within four weeks of the petitioner removing the deficiencies, if any, communicated to him by the respondent - Government of NCT of Delhi.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 22, 2013/rd