Shri Satish Kumar Tiwari vs Dda And Ors.
2015 Latest Caselaw 7241 Del

*                    HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          C.R.P. No.121/2013


                                      Decided on: 22nd September, 2015


       SHRI SATISH KUMAR TIWARI                  ...... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate.

               Versus
    DDA AND ORS.                           ...... Respondents
            Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with
                      Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate,
                      Mr. Ankit Gupta, Adv. &
                      Ms. Arpita, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order

dated 12.04.2013 by virtue of which the objection of the decree

holder for allotment of an alternative plot at Gandhi Vihar was

rejected.

2. In order to appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel

for the petitioner, it would be pertinent to give brief background of

the case. The petitioner is an evictee of a plot in Hudson Lane

under the Rehabilitation Scheme. The petitioner is claiming to be

an allottee of 25 sq. yds. of land at Gandhi Vihar. The petitioner

had got an order from the Court for allotment of this 25 sq. yds. of

land at Gandhi Vihar from the Court of Additional District Judge

against the DDA. Since plot was not allotted to him in Gandhi

Vihar, he was constrained to file an execution petition.

3. The respondent-judgment debtor had taken the stand in the

execution petition that they can offer a plot to the petitioner only in

Bawana Residential Area, Narela, which was not acceptable to the

petitioner. Petitioner has raised an objection before the Executing

Court that Plot No.522, which is also plot No.C-32, Gopal Pur,

Gandhi Vihar was lying vacant and that was not being deliberately

allotted to the decree holder. The respondent-JD took the plea that

the aforesaid Plot C-32, was already in possession of one Smt.

Kanta Jain and Smt. Shivani Jain.

4. The learned Executing Court had perused the judgment dated

03.12.2009 passed by the learned ADJ by virtue of which the

petitioner-DH was held to be entitled to 25 sq. yds. of land. It was

observed by the Executing Court that in the judgment there was no

observation that the alternative allotment of 25 sq. yds. Of land was

to be made to the petitioner in Gopal Pur or in its vicinity and

therefore, the objections of the petitioner-decree holder were

dismissed.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner had preferred the present revision

petition in this Court in the year 2013 which has been kept on

pending for almost last two years. Before this Court also, the

learned counsel for the DDA-JD had made a statement that the

only alternative plots which are available for allotment to the

petitioner are in Block-L, Group-2, Sector G-8, Narela Residential

Scheme and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was given an option

to select any of the plots from Plot No. 5 to 37 and thus, there was

wide range of 32 plots which were offered for selection to the

petitioner-decree holder. It was observed by order dated

20.04.2015 that the petitioner should exercise the choice of one

plot amongst all these plots within a period of one month.

Although more than five months have gone by and the case is

listed today, the petitioner has not selected any plot out of 32 plots

which were offered by the respondent-judgment debtor to the

petitioner in terms of the orders of the Court.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court had also

once again contested since his plot which was acquired by the

respondent-judgment debtor was Hudson Lane, therefore, he was

entitled to a plot of land in Gandhi Vihar. It was contended by him

that some responsible officer of the respondent be directed to file

an Affidavit that they have no alternative plot available to them

either in the Rohini or in Gandhi Vihar or in the immediate vicinity

of his plot which was acquired.

7. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner. I am of the considered view that the order which has

been passed by the learned Court below which has been impugned

in the present revision petition does not suffer from any

jurisdictional error, material irregularity or illegality. The question

involved in the instant matter is allotment of an alternative plot to

the petitioner in terms of the orders of the Court. The learned ADJ

while holding that the petitioner is entitled to a plot of land

measuring 25 sq. yds. of land nowhere observed that the said land

is to be allotted to the petitioner in a specific area in the immediate

vicinity to the land where his land was acquired or wherefrom he

was evicted. The land is very scarce in Delhi and if the

respondent-DDA, because of the direction passed by the Court is

able to offer the whole range of plots to the petitioner in a

residential scheme in Narela, he should have been forth coming in

accepting one of them. The contention of the learned counsel for

the petitioner that Narela is not safe or that essential amenities are

not provided in the locality where the plot is being allotted to him

are lame excuses raised by the petitioner only to avoid the

allotment of a plot in an area where it is being offered to the

petitioner.

8. I do not find that there is any illegality or jurisdictional error or

impropriety in passing the order by the learned Executing Court

rejecting these frivolous objections of the petitioner. The present

revision petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed.

As a matter of fact, I have not gone into the question of very

maintainability of the revision petition itself which I have a serious

doubt whether it can be entertained against the impugned order.

Dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2015 vk