Tilak Raj Tanwar vs D.D.A
2013 Latest Caselaw 4941 Del

$~5

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Decided on: 28th October, 2013

+     W.P.(C) 6295/2012
      TILAK RAJ TANWAR                                             ..... Petitioner
                   Through:                 Mr. Rajesh Dagar, Advocate with
                                            Mr. Swastik Singh, Advocate
                               versus
      D.D.A                                                         ..... Respondent
                               Through:     M. Arjun Pant, Advocate for R-1.
                                            Ms. Sangeet Sondhi, Advocate for R-2.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL

                                        JUDGMENT

G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayer:-

"writ(s), order(s) and direction(s) in the appropriate nature directing the respondent no.1 to allot the alternative residential DDA flat to the petitioner in view of the scheme known as "Evictees of Mahavir Enclave-III 2004" framed for the purpose of rehabilitation of the persons whose residential/commercial properties was acquired by the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for construction of 18 mtr. road widening for Planned Development of Delhi vide award no.1/2003-2004 dated 29.04.2003."

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was the lawful owner of property bearing no.C-25 and C-26, Mahavir Enclave-III, New Delhi having a total area measuring 150 sq. yds. He was in actual and physical possession of this property. By virtue of Notification No.F.10(43)/98/L&B/LA/13120 and declaration vide Notification No.F.10(43)/98/L&B/LA/1315 dated 30.04.2001, land measuring 6

Bighas 8 Biswas, including the land in occupation of the Petitioner was acquired for public purpose, that is, for construction and widening of road and Planned Development of Delhi. The valuation report in respect of the super structure and the land was made by the concerned authority.

3. While carrying out the valuation in respect of the super structure by award No.1/2003-2004, the name of Ashok Kumar, brother of the Petitioner was inadvertently mentioned by the Land Acquisition Collector. This led to the award of compensation of acquisition of the super structure and the land underneath it in favour of Ashok Kumar only (Respondent No.3 herein).

4. By an order dated 03.07.2008, the Court of learned ADJ on reference made by LAC, corrected the mistake and held that IP No.2, Tilak Raj, that is, the Petitioner herein is entitled to get the amount of compensation and similarly, there was another reference in respect of compensation payable to the Petitioner in respect of the land acquired. By an order dated 29.03.2010, Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned ADJ, held the Petitioner to be entitled to compensation in respect of 81 sq. yds. of land which was acquired.

5. By a letter dated 19.01.2011, the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) through Under Secretary made a recommendation for allotment of an alternative DDA flat in favour of the Petitioner herein. However, on account of mistake, the allotment of Flat No.410, Type A, Pocket III, Block B was made in favour of Ashok Kumar (Respondent No.3 herein), brother of the Petitioner.

6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner is that since the mistake in recording the name in the awards of compensation had been corrected by the learned ADJ by orders stated above and the

recommendation was also made by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) for allotment of the flat in the name of the Petitioner only, there was no occasion for Respondent No.1 to have allotted the flat in the name of Respondent No.3, brother of the Petitioner.

7. Although, on the basis of the documents produced on record, it was apparent that it was the Petitioner who was entitled to the allotment of the alternative flat, yet in order to avoid any controversy, Ashok Kumar, brother of the Petitioner was ordered to be impleaded as a party in this writ petition as Respondent No.3. A notice was duly served upon him. He has preferred not to contest the present petition.

8. It is evident that he has no claim in respect of the allotment of alternative flat which as per the documents placed on record is to be made in favour of the Petitioner.

9. The writ petition is according allowed with direction to Respondent No.1 to allot Flat No.410, Pocket-III, Block-B (Type A), Ground Floor in favour of the Petitioner.

10. The allotment letter shall be issued by the DDA within a period of six weeks.

11. A copy of the order be given Dasti to the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for Respondent No.1.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE

OCTOBER 28, 2013 vk