Delhi High Court
Govt Of Nct Of Delhi Thr Secretary ... vs Pawan Kumar on 24 April, 2017
$~15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 559/2016 and CM Nos.37773-37774/2016
Date of Decision: 24.04.2017
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI THR SECRETARY (LAND &
BUILDING DEPARTMENT) ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi,
Advocates
versus
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.R.S.Tiwari, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral)
1. The appellant assails the order dated 25th August, 2015 by the
learned Single Judge in WP(C) 7688/2015 wherein the learned Single
Judge was pleased to accept the explanation given by the respondents
for the delay in seeking allotment of an alternate plot against
acquisition of his land which had been rejected by the appellant on the
sole ground that it was beyond the one year calculated from the date
when the compensation was received by him towards the acquisition.
2. By the order dated 25th August, 2015, the learned Single Judge
had directed the appellant herein to issue notice to the petitioner
indicating the date, time and venue at which the respondent was
required to present himself and the recommendation committee of the
appellant was to afford a personal hearing to the respondent and pass
a speaking order afresh. Time bound directions for completion of the
entire proceedings were made.
3. Our attention is drawn to the order dated 22nd March, 2017
dismissing the LPA No.138/2017 Government of NCT of Delhi v.
Sanjay & Ors. and LPA No. 139/2017 Govt. of NCT of Delhi v.
Dhan Raj & Anr..
4. LPA No.138/2017 was filed by the Government of NCT of
Delhi challenging the orders passed in WP(C) No.8636/2016 Dhan
Raj V. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. and W.P.(C) No.
8566/2016 titled Sanjay & Ors. v. Government of NCT of Delhi &
Anr..
5. It appears that these writ petitions were filed by the persons
who were placed similarly as Pawan Kumar who had filed the Writ
Petition (Civil) No.7688/2015 titled Pawan Kumar v. Government of
NCT of Delhi & Anr.. After considering the case of the writ
petitioners with W.P.(C) No.7688/2015, the writ petition Nos.
8636/2016 and 8566/2016 were allowed by the learned Single Judge.
The challenge by the Government of NCT of Delhi to orders passed
by the learned Single Judge was rejected by this Court by the said
order dated 22nd March, 2017 holding as follows:
" 7. The material available on record shows that the
respondents herein/writ petitioners made applications
for allotment of an alternate plot in the year 2003 in
terms of the scheme. Long thereafter, in the year
2015 their applications were rejected as time barred
on the ground that the applications were made beyond
the prescribed time of one year. Aggrieved by the
same, the respondents herein filed W.Ps.(C)
No.8636/2016 and 8566/2016 respectively. The
learned Single Judge found that in W.P.(C)
No.8566/2016 there was delay of 7 days and in
W.P.(C) No.8636/2016 there was delay of 4 days in
making the application for alternative plot. The
learned Single Judge was, therefore, of the view that
the negligible delay of 4 days and 7 days should not
come in the way of considering their claims on merits.
Accordingly by the orders under appeal, the rejection
orders were set aside and the writ petitions were
disposed of with a direction to consider the
applications of the writ petitioners on merits.
8. The said orders, in our considered opinion,
warrant no interference on any ground whatsoever."
6. We find that the case of the appellants in LPA No. 138/2017
titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Sanjay & Ors and LPA No. 139/2017
titled Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Dhan Raj & Anr. is similar to the case
of the present respondent Pawan Kumar. We see no reason at all to
take a different view in the present matter.
7. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has accepted the
explanation of the respondent for the delay which was occasioned in
making the application for an alternate plot.
8. The impugned order dated 25th August, 2016 does not warrant
any interference.
9. In view of the above, we find no merits in the appeal. The
appeal and the application are dismissed.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
ANU MALHOTRA, J
APRIL 24, 2017/sv
