Delhi High Court
Om Prakash vs Delhi Development Authority on 23 April, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.04.2013
+ W.P.(C) 2608/2013
OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajeshwar Dagar and Mr Swastik Singh,
Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
CM No. 4938/2013
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 2608/2013 and CM No. 4937/2013 (stay)
1. The agricultural land of the petitioner having been acquired for planned
development of Delhi, he applied for an alternative plot under the Scheme framed
on 02.05.1961 by the Government of India for large scale acquisition development
and disposal of land in Delhi. A recommendation was made by Government of
NCT of Delhi to DDA for allotment of a plot measuring 80 square yards to the
petitioner. However, instead of allotting a plot measuring 80 square yards, DDA
allotted a plot measuring 45 square metre to the petitioner. The petitioner made a
representation to DDA submitting therein that the size of the plot allotted to him
was not in consonance with the recommendation made by the Government of NCT
of Delhi. Vide letter dated 04.02.2011, Delhi Development Authority cancelled the
allotment of plot measuring 45 square metre made to the petitioner and informed
him that he shall be considered for allotment of another plot after a period of one
year.
2. Since no allotment of a bigger plot was made to the petitioner even on expiry
of one year from the date of the aforesaid letter, W.P.(C) No. 3206/2012 was filed
by the petitioner seeking allotment of a bigger plot. The aforesaid writ petition
came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2012.
The following was the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition:-
"The petitioner seeks a direction to the
respondent/DDA to make allotment of alternate
plot in view of the recommendation made by
the respondent/DDA vide letters of 15.04.2005 and
14.02.2011. In this regard, the petitioner had
written a letter of 29.03.2012 to the
respondent/DDA, which according to the
petitioner's counsel has not been considered by the
respondent/DDA.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of
in limine with directions to the respondent/DDA to
effectively respond to the petitioner's letter of
29.03.2012 within a period of three months and
to communicate its fate within two weeks
thereafter.
With these observations, the petition is disposed
of."
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite order of the Court dated
25.05.2012, the respondent DDA has not effectively responded to his letter dated
29.03.2012. In my view, if the respondent DDA has not complied with the order
passed by this Court on 25.05.2012 by not effectively responding to the petitioner's
letter dated 29.05.2012, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file a
petition against the respondent-DDA, alleging disobedience of the order passed by
this Court on 25.05.2012 and a fresh writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for
enforcement of the order passed in an earlier writ petition. The petitioner, in my
view, would not have a fresh cause of action to file a fresh writ petition unless
DDA passed some order or issues some communication in compliance of the order
dated 25.05.2012 and the petitioner is aggrieved from such an order of the
communication.
4. The petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed.
The pending application also stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 23, 2013/BG
