Delhi High Court
Shri Satpal vs Land And Building Department on 12 October, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: October 12, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 10926/2018
SHRI SATPAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Advocate
versus
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Additional
Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti
Tyagi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of
acquired land stands dismissed vide impugned order of 27th May, 2014
due to non-submission of requisite documents. This is second round of
litigation. In the first round, respondent vide order of 29 th June, 2013
(Annexure P-7 colly.) was called upon to scrutinize petitioner's
application for allotment of alternate plot within a period of eight weeks,
with permission to petitioner to remove the deficiencies within four
weeks of receipt of Communication from respondent. Vide
Communication of 24th August, 2013 (Annexure P-9 colly.), petitioner
was intimated about the deficiencies in the documents submitted. As per
impugned order, the deficiency pointed out in aforesaid Communication
were not rectified by petitioner and so, petitioner's application for
allotment of alternate plot stands rejected.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that wife of petitioner's
brother suddenly left the house in the year 2013, due to which petitioner's
brother became depressed and had ultimately died in January, 2015 and
thereafter, petitioner had to take care of minor children of his brother and
so, petitioner could not pursue his application for allotment of alternate
plot.
3. Upon hearing, I find that there is delay of about four years and the
explanation furnished by petitioner does not hold good as in the year
2013, petitioner had approached this Court for the relief sought.
4. Considering the fact that few deficiencies in documents as pointed
out by respondent, have been made available to respondent by way of
Land Acquisition Collector's Report (Annexure P-11). To make good the
remaining deficiencies, it is deemed appropriate to give one opportunity
to petitioner to submit the information/documents sought at serial Nos. 8,
9, 12 & 13 as mentioned in respondent's Communication of 24 th October,
2013 (Annexure P-9 colly.), while subjecting petitioner to terms.
5. In the impugned order, there is reference to respondent's
Communication of 8th January, 2014 to petitioner, which has not been
placed on record. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
respondent's Communication of 8th January, 2014 has not been received
by petitioner and the deficiencies pointed out by respondent in its
Communication of 8th January, 2014 will be made good within six weeks
upon supplying copy of aforesaid Communication to petitioner.
6. In view of aforesaid, there is no point in inviting counter affidavit
to this petition, as for the gross and inordinate delay occasioned,
petitioner is subjected to terms as no plausible explanation is forthcoming
for petitioner's grossly negligent conduct. Subject to petitioner depositing
costs of `1,00,000/- with the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund,
within six weeks from today and on producing the proof of deposit of
costs, petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of
acquired land, be reconsidered by respondent within a period of 30 weeks
and prior thereto, deficiencies be pointed out by respondent to petitioner
within a period of four weeks and petitioner shall make good the said
deficiencies within another six weeks. The fate of reconsideration of
petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of acquired
land, be intimated to petitioner within a period of four weeks thereafter,
so that petitioner may avail of remedies as available in law, if need be.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
DASTI.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 12, 2018
s
