Shakuntala Devi vs Land & Building Department & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1884 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                         Date of Decision: 26.04.2013

+      W.P.(C) 2676/2013

       SHAKUNTALA DEVI                              ..... Petitioner

                               Through:   Mr N.S. Dalal, Mr Amit Rana, Mr D.P.
                                          Singh, Advs.

                      versus

       LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ORS. ..... Respondent

                               Through:   Mr Sanjeev Sahay, Adv. for LAC/L&B

                                          Mr Rajiv Bansal, Mr. Parambir Singh and
                                          Ms. Swati Verma, Advs. for DDA

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

                               JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The land of the petitioner in Village Mahipalpur was acquired vide Award no.17/72-73. As per the policy of the respondents for allotment of alternative plots under the Scheme dated 2.5.1961 for Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, the petitioner applied for allotment of alternative plot on 3.3.1988. Vide letter dated 8.10.2012 , the petitioner as well as the Land Acquisition Collector were asked to provide certain information referred in the letter to the Land & Building Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi. The petitioner claims to have provided the requisite information on 31.10.2012. The Land Acquisition Collector also sent the requisite information vide letter dated 5.11.2012. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite his having provided the

requisite information and the Land & Building Department also having received the requisite information from the Land & Acquisition Collector, no recommendation has so far been made for allotment of an alternative plot to her. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to treat the recommendation having been made by the respondent no.1 by applying the principle in Sulekh Malik's case, or in the alternative, directing the respondent no.1 to make recommendation within a time bound period of one or two months and further directing the respondent no.3 to allot the alternative plot within two months thereafter;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondents to pay compensation for the delay caused in making recommendation and allotting the plot.

2. A similar petition being W.P(C) No.2118/2013 came up for consideration before this Court and on 22.4.2013. The turn of the petitioner in that case, for allotment of alternative plot having matured, his application was under scrutiny when the writ petition came up for hearing. The petitioner in that case, considering the abnormal delay on the part of the respondent in making recommendation for allotment of alternative plot to him, wanted the Court to straightaway direct allotment within a time-bound manner instead of directing decision on his application pending with the government. In this regard, the petitioner in that case relied upon the decision of this Court in W.P(C) No.4043/2008 decided on 8.4.2009. The petitioner in this case is also relying upon the very same decision of

this Court. Rejecting the prayer to direct straightaway allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner, this Court, inter alia, observed and held as under:

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.

3. Following the decision dated 22.4.2013 in W.P(C) No.2118/2013, this 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, 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 of 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 further deficiencies, if any, and will thereafter be communicated to him by the respondent - Government of NCT of Delhi.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 26, 2013/rd