Dalip Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 3672 Del

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Judgment delivered on:12th August, 2014


+                            W.P.(C) No.2965/2014

DALIP SINGH                                                   ..... Petitioner
                             Represented by:     Mr.Suraj Singh, Advocate.

                             Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                                       ..... Respondent
                   Represented by:               Mr.Surya Nath Pandey,
                                                 Advocate for Mr.Yeeshu
                                                 Jain, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter No.F.32(47)/25/89L&B/ALT 13534 dated 27.11.2013 issued by the respondent rejecting the case of the petitioner.

2. On the last date of hearing, i.e., 12.05.2014, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent on advance notice and sought time to verify the records for making his submissions on the issue whether the petitioner's predecessor, i.e., Shri Hanumant, recorded owner had applied during his lifetime for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land.

3. On instructions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent, submits that late Sh. Hanumant had applied for the alternative plot during his life time, however, this fact was not disclosed by the petitioner and he again applied for alternative plot on 28.04.1989.

4. In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, I set aside the order dated 27.11.2013 and the respondent is directed to reconsider the petitioner's representation afresh.

5. Before parting with the instant petition, I note, the petitioner made representation on 28.04.1989 seeking allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land, however, the respondent took more than 24 years to decide the same vide order dated 27.11.2013.

6. The instant petition is allowed on the above terms.

7. No orders as to costs.

SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) AUGUST 12, 2014 Sb/jg