Delhi High Court
Ajit Singh vs Uoi And Ors on 26 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7496/2014 & CM No. 17746/2014
AJIT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr M.K. Vashisht, Adv.
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Adv. for R-1.
Mr Yeeshu Jain & Ms Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for R-2.
Mr Abhishek Kr. Singh, Adv. for Mr Kunal
Sharma, Adv. for 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.
2. It is the stand of the petitioner that even though he is 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
the petitioner 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 him.
3. The petitioner herein challenges the communication dated
15.07.2014 whereby the petitioner's application for allotment of an alternate
plot was rejected. Notice in this petition was issued on 03.11.2014. Despite
notice, no counter affidavit has been filed in the matter by respondent no. 1
and 2. Only respondent no.3 i.e. DDA has filed a counter affidavit. In
these circumstances, the assertions made in the writ petition essentially have
gone untraversed by respondent no. 1 and 2.
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 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. To be noted, in the
letter dated 28.06.2014, there is a reference not only to this fact but also to
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 petitioner indicating
therein the date, time and venue at which he would be required to present
himself. The notice will indicate the documents, if any, which the petitioner
is required to place before the recommendation committee. The
recommendation committee will accord a personal hearing to him and,
thereafter, pass a speaking order. 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,
in that eventuality, the petitioner will retain the same seniority as he would
have had got, had his 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
