Delhi High Court
Raj Singh Malik vs Land And Building Department on 30 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1313/2015
RAJ SINGH MALIK ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Adv.
versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. B. Malhotra and Mr. Chaitanya,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 30.07.2015
1. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite order dated
08.07.2009 of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) No.4043/2008, titled: Sulekh
Malik v. Government of NCT of Delhi, there has been no compliance by the
respondent.
2. The petitioner claims to be one of the legal heirs of Late Mr. Mohan
Lal, whose land, situate in Khasra No.289 and 293, in the revenue estate of
village Masoodpur, Delhi, was acquired.
3. In view of the acquisition of the said land, the respondent was
directed to allot an alternate plot in favour of all legal heirs of Late
Mr.Mohan Lal, which included the petitioner herein. This direction came to
be passed as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.4043/2008 (i.e. Mr. Sulekh
Malik), conceded that such a direction could be passed by the court to do
away with the impediment placed in the allotment of alternate plot by the
petitioner herein, who was noticed as the complainant by the court, while
passing the order dated 8.7.2009.
4. While disposing of W.P.(C) No.4043/2008, the respondent, had been
given a time frame of three (3) months.
5. The respondent, however, for reasons best known to it, made a
recommendation only in favour of Mr. Sulekh Malik (i.e. the petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.4043/2008). This letter, which is, dated 29.6.2012, was
addressed by the respondent to the Commissioner (Land), Delhi
Development Authority, (in short the DDA), New Delhi. The record shows
that the respondent attempted to correct the course by issuing a clarificatory
letter dated 12.7.2012 to the Commissioner (Land Disposal), DDA, New
Delhi. By virtue of this letter, the DDA clarified that in view of the order of
this Court, allotment should be made by the DDA in the name of all legal
heirs of Late Mr Mohan Lal, which included the petitioner herein (i.e. Mr.
Raj Singh) as also, Gian Singh, Dhan Kaur, Pushpa, Sat Kaur, Rani,
Rajwanti Sumitra and Mr. Sulekh Malik.
6. The petitioner herein, however, was not satisfied and, therefore, made
representation to officers of the respondent. The representation is dated
28.5.2014. The representation was followed by a notice served upon the
respondent via its advocate, dated 2.8.2014.
7. Since, corrective measures were not taken, the petitioner, approached
this Court via the instant writ petition.
8. Notice in this writ petition was issued on 11.3.2015.
9. The respondent entered appearance in the matter, however, no counter
affidavit has been filed, to date. Mr.Malhotra, who appears for the
respondent, says that no counter affidavit is required, and that, he would
argue the matter based on the record.
10. I have heard the counsels for the parties.
11. The principal stand, in opposition, taken by the respondent in this
behalf, is that, since a clarificatory letter has already been issued, the
grievance of the petitioner has been taken care of.
12. Counsel for the petitioner argues to the contrary and seeks compliance
with the order passed by this Court, on 8.7.2009, in W.P.(C) No.4043/2008.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am inclined to agree
with the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.
14. The operative directions issued by this court on 8.7.2009 were as
follows:-
"Counsel for the petitioner states today that to resolve the
said dispute, the respondent may be directed to allot the
alternate plot in question collectively to all the legal heirs
of late Shri Mohan Lal, including the complainant, Shri
Raj Singh Malik and that the dispute interse the siblings
of late Shri Mohan Lal may be left to be decided by the
Civil Court, as and when approached.
The aforesaid proposal of the petitioner is reasonable and
acceptable. The writ petition is disposed of with
directions to the respondent to allot the alternate plot to
all the legal heirs of late Shri Mohan Lal, in lieu of his
land acquired by the respondent."
15. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the respondent
would allot the alternate plot to all legal heirs of Late Mr. Mohan Lal in lieu
of the acquired land.
16. It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for the respondent
that the first step towards allotment would be a recommendation of the
respondent as the allotment has to be made by the DDA. The apprehension
of the petitioner, is that, since a recommendatory letter dated 29.6.2012 is
only in the name of Mr. Sulekh Malik, it is likely to be misused by the said
person, who is one of the many legal heirs of Late Mr. Mohan Lal. This
grievance of the petitioner appears to be legitimate.
17. Accordingly, the respondent is directed to issue a fresh
recommendatory letter in supersession of letter dated 29.6.2012, which
would bear out that the recommendation is made in the name of all legal
heirs of Late Mr. Mohan Lal.
18. For this purpose, all necessary steps which are required in law will be
taken by the respondent.
19. Needless to say, this exercise will be completed with expedition
though not later than two (2) months from today.
20. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 30, 2015
s.pal
