Delhi High Court
Surjit Singh Deceased Thr Lrs vs Uoi And Ors on 26 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7314/2014 & CM No. 17108/2014
SURJIT SINGH (DECEASED)
THR. LRS. ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr M.K. Vashisht, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Adv. for R-1.
Ms Deepika, Adv. for R-2.
Mr Sanjay Singh, Adv. for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 26.08.2015
1. By virtue of the captioned writ petition directions are sought qua the
respondents for allotment of an alternate plot as per the scheme/ policy dated
02.05.1961, formulated by them. To be noted, the LRs of the petitioner i.e.
Mr Surjit Singh, were brought on record by order dated 15.04.2015, passed
by the learned Registrar.
2. It is the stand of the LRs of the petitioner that even though they are
entitled to an alternate plot in terms of the aforesaid policy, the application
filed, for this purpose, has been erroneously rejected on the ground that the
entire land of their predecessor-in-interest was not acquired. It is averred
that, inadvertently, in the application, a reference had been made to khasra
no. 239/2(2-9) situate in village Dhulsiras, which was in fact not the land
owned by their predecessor-in-interest.
3. Notice in this petition was issued on 03.12.2014 after had been taken
to amend the writ petition. The amendment application being: CM No.
18000/2014, was also allowed, on the said date. The amendment sought
was, essentially, for the purposes of assailing the communication dated
15.07.2014 whereby, the application for allotment of an alternate plot was
rejected.
3.1 Pertinently, despite notice, no counter affidavit has been filed in the
matter. In these circumstances, the assertions made in the writ petition
essentially have gone untraversed.
4. Mr. Vashisht has drawn my attention to letter dated 28.06.2014
(annexure P-5), whereby it was sought to be brought to the notice of the
respondents, in particular, respondent no.2, that the entire land had been
acquired and, furthermore, the reference to khasra no. 239/2(2-9), was made,
inadvertently.
4.1 It is also the submission of Mr. Vashisht that the acquired land was
owned by the deceased petitioner along with his two siblings (i.e. brothers),
one of whom upon acquisition has already been recommended by the
respondents for allotment of an alternate plot. I am informed that the said
brother of the petitioner goes by the name of Mr Bhagwat Dayal.
4.2 To be noted, in the letter dated 28.06.2014, there is a reference not
only to this fact but also to the file number of Mr Bhagwat Dayal's case.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to allow
the writ petition and, to consequently, direct the respondent to reconsider the
case of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 15.07.2014, is
set aside.
6. The recommendation committee, so constituted by respondent no.2, is
directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner. For this purpose, the
recommendation committee will issue a notice to the LRs of the petitioner
indicating therein the date, time and venue at which they would be required
to present themselves. The notice will indicate the documents, if any, which
they would be required to place before the recommendation committee. The
recommendation committee will accord a personal hearing to them and,
thereafter, pass a speaking order. The LRs of the petitioner will be furnished
a copy of the speaking order within two (2) weeks of the same being passed.
7. Needless to say, the aforesaid exercise will be completed with due
expedition, though not later than four (4) months from today. In case the
application of the petitioner is allowed by the recommendation committee,
the LRs of the petitioner will retain the same seniority as they would have
got, had their application been allowed in the first instance.
8. The writ petition and the application are, accordingly, disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AUGUST 26, 2015
kk
