Yudhvir Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 4604 Del

$~11
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Judgment delivered on:18th September, 2014

+                                W.P.(C) No.3065/2013

YUDHVIR SINGH                                                   ..... Petitioner
                   Represented by:            Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.
                        Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                                       ..... Respondents
                   Represented by:            Ms. Rachna Srivastava and
                                              Ms.Kanika Dass, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks directions against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the first part of the seniority list prepared on 'first come first served' basis. Vide public Notification dated 06.09.2011, the respondents sought objections if name of any of the applicant is not found in the list prepared by the Department, he or she can file objections accordingly.

2. Pursuant thereto, petitioner checked the seniority list. He did not find his name in said list, accordingly, made representation to the respondents. However, till date there is no response.

3. Case of the petitioner before this Court is that three awards were passed vide Award No.1954 dated 16.03.1967, Award No.1166 dated 14.09.1961 and Award No.22/1981-82 dated 28.09.1981, whereby agricultural land in Village Ziyadinpur, Delhi, was acquired for planned

development of Delhi. In pursuance of Award No.1954 dated 16.03.1967, possession of land of the petitioner was taken over by the Government on 09.06.1967 and he received compensation on 21.03.1967.

4. It is an admitted fact that name of the petitioner is not indicated in the seniority list for allotment of an alternative plot.

5. Ms.Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits though the petitioner is not entitled for allotment of alternative plot, however, on making the application, respondents ought to have indicated his name in the seniority list, however, inadvertently, name of the petitioner has been missed out.

6. Mr.R.K.Saini, learned counsel for petitioner submits that let name of the petitioner be indicated in the seniority list and thereafter the petitioner's case be put up before the concerned committee to ascertain as to whether the petitioner is entitled for allotment of alternative plot.

7. In view of the issue raised in the petition, respondents are directed to indicate the name of the petitioner in the seniority list as per the order of seniority and decide accordingly.

8. With aforesaid observation, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs.

9. A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.

SURESH KAIT, J.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014/sb