Delhi High Court
Yogesh Chander Bhardwaj vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 July, 2024
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 04th July, 2024
Decided on: 30th July, 2024
+ W.P. (C) 7931/2014
YOGESH CHANDER BHARDWAJ
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikas Mehta,
Mr. Sandeep Ratra and
Ms. Nitika Grover,
Advocates
V
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Siddharth Panda,
Advocate for R-1 & 3
Ms. Manika Tripathy,
Standing Counsel with
Mr. Naveen K. Sarswat and
Ms. Rony John, Advocates
for R-2/DDA
CORAM
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution for issuance of direction to the respondents to execute a
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 1
lease deed in respect of plot bearing no J-275, Malviya Nagar, New
Delhi in favour of the petitioner.
2. The factual matrix of the case as stated by the petitioner is that
the Delhi Administration issued notification bearing no. F.15
(111)/59-LSG dated 13.11.1959 under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") to
acquire the agricultural land of the village Baharpur for Planned
Development of Delhi (PDD) and thereafter notification bearing no
F.15(7)/61-LSG dated 16.10.1961 was issued under section 6 of the
Act. The land belonging to Harpiari (whom the petitioner claims to
be his grandmother) bearing khasra nos. 1470/820/2, 1478/830,
1481/849, 1485/1331, 1486/1331 and 1487/1331 situated in Village
Baharpur was acquired vide award no.1241 and 1282 in the year
1962. Harpiari was paid compensation in respect of the land acquired
vide award no.1282 of 1962 on 22.01.1963 and enhanced
compensation was also paid to Harpiari in pursuance of judgment
passed by the court of Additional District Judge, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as "the Reference Court").
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 2
2.1 Harpiari submitted an application on 01.11.1977 for allotment
of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land under the scheme of 'large
scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi'. The
respondent no. 1/Land and Building Department asked Harpiari to
furnish legal documents in respect of the acquired land including
jamabandi, copy of the judgment granting enhanced compensation
passed by the Reference Court and several communications were
exchanged between the respondent no. 1/Land and Building
Department, Acquisition Branch (DC Office) and Harpiari for
completion of the documentation. Harpiari also replied to queries
vide letter dated 04.05.1978 pertaining to the ownership of house
bearing no.689 in response to letter dated 02.05.1978 to the
satisfaction of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
despite earlier submission of affidavit. The Land Acquisition
Collector also confirmed the acquisition and compensation vide letter
dated 09.02.1978 in response to letter dated 08.11.1977 of the
respondent no.1/Land & Building Department. The respondent
no.1/Land & Building Department raised queries regarding number
and date of notification vide letters dated 2.5.1978, 1.6.1978 and
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 3
17.07.1978. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
issued letter no. F-32(21)/3/77/ALT/5102 dated 05.02.1979 under
signature of Under Secretary (CN) recommending to the Land Sales
Officer, DDA i.e. the respondent no. 2 for allotment of alternative
plot admeasuring 200 sq. yards to Harpiari, copy of which was also
endorsed to Harpiari. The respondent no. 2/DDA issued a provisional
demand letter dated 09.04.1979 to Harpiari regarding detailed terms
and conditions of the allotment and Harpiari had paid the provisional
demand within time. The respondent no. 2/DDA allotted a plot
measuring 200 sq. yards (167.226 sq. meter) bearing no. J-275,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi vide letter bearing no. 27(26)/79- LSB(R)
dated 27.06.1979 subject to payment of premium amounting to
Rs.15,385/- and completion of other formalities. Harpiari deposited
the balance premium and cost of preparation of lease deed amounting
to Rs.11549.75/- as earnest money amounting to Rs.3846.25/- was
already deposited and as such, paid the entire premium/cost of plot
within required time frame. The respondent no.2/DDA handed over
possession of said plot to Harpiari on 20.03.1980 and also issued a
certificate on 20.03.1980. The respondent no. 2/DDA also issued No
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 4
Objection Certificate on 08.09.1980 to build and use the land for
residential purpose in favour of Harpiari and the plot since then is
used for residential purpose.
2.2 Harpiari many times approached the respondent no. 2/DDA for
execution of lease but the respondent no. 2/DDA replied that a
confirmation of recommendation from the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department is required for registration of lease as per the
instructions of the respondent no.1/Land & Building Department and
as such the respondent no. 2/DDA did not execute lease. The
respondent no. 2/DDA continued to write letters from 23.04.1981 but
no response was received from the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide DO letter no. F1
(3)80-C(L) dated 12.11.1980 issued under signature of K. L. Bhatia,
Commissioner (Lands) in response to DO letter dated 29.10.1980
received from D. S. Mishra, Secretary, Land & Building Department
sent a list of recommendation letters received from the respondent
no.1/Land & Building Department regarding allotment of alternative
plots since 01.04.1978 comprising of 721 cases subdivided into four
zones. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department vide letter
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 5
bearing no. F.15/210/80-L&B-7352 dated 17.02.1981 informed the
respondent no. 2/DDA that the matter has been referred to the
Vigilance Department in relation to alleged malpractices in issue of
recommendation letters in those 721 cases. The case of Harpiari was
mentioned at serial no. 86 in the list of south zone as evident from
letter dated 05.07.1982 of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department. The Vigilance Department, Delhi Administration after
enquiry lodged FIR against 138 cases but no FIR was lodged against
Harpiari whose name was found in the category of genuine cases.
The Vigilance Cell of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department vide letter no. F-32(21)/3/77/L&B/VC/15455 dated
02.04.1981 asked Harpiari to submit a copy of jamabandi duly
certified by the Tehsildar, Delhi for the year 1958-59 or L.R.-4 to
show that she was the recorded owner of the acquired land prior to
the notification issued under section 4 of the Act so that the
recommendation for allotment of alternative plot could be confirmed
in favour of Harpiari to the respondent no. 2/DDA. Harpiari vide
letter dated 07.07.1981 bearing receipt no. 12566 responded to said
query wherein it is stated that jamabandi was not affected after
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 6
1949-50 and jamabandi already submitted was the last jamabandi
before acquisition of land and Reference Court had also awarded
enhanced compensation after considering ownership of Harpiari in
respect of acquired land.
2.3 Harpiari executed a registered Will dated 08.09.1981 in favour
of Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj, father of the petitioner. Harpiari on
enquiry with the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
regarding confirmation of the allotted plot was informed that the
copy of fard/jamabandi submitted by her vide letter dated 07.07.1981
could not be traced in the file and was asked to submit original copy
of fard/jamabandi and fard/jamabandi issued on 27.6.1981 was
submitted. Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj again submitted the original
jamabandi issued on 10.12.1981 after getting it attested by the
Tehsildar vide letter dated 11.12.1981 as demanded by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department. The respondent
no.1/Land & Building Department despite submissions of requisite
documents did not confirm the allotment. Harpiari also received an
endorsement copy of letter bearing F No. 32(21)/3/77-L&B/
VC/12160 Dated 24.3.1982 from Vigilance Cell, Land & Building
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 7
Department addressed to the Land Acquisition Collector, Tis Hazari
wherein a confirmation of acquired land was sought from Land
Acquisition Collector, Tis Hazari, Delhi for confirmation of
recommendation to DDA. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department vide their letter dated 05.07.1982 addressed to Deputy
Director (Residential) of the respondent no. 2/DDA asked for a copy
of the recommendation letter from the respondent no. 2/DDA
followed by a reminder dated 26.08.1982. The respondent no. 2/DDA
supplied the photocopy of the recommendation letter vide letter dated
06.09.1982 but the respondent no. 1 did not take any action for about
15 years. Harpiari passed away on 22.12.1985 and said land was
bequeathed to Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj in pursuance of registered Will
dated 07.09.1981. Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj also expired on
17.05.1996. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department again
demanded a copy of letter sent by the respondent no. 2/DDA dated
06.09.1982 and copy of its recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979
vide letter dated 16.05.1997 followed by a reminder dated
26.05.1997. The respondent no. 2/DDA supplied these documents
their letter dated 01.07.1997 and a request was made for
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 8
confirmation. The petitioner became owner of the said plot in
pursuance of relinquishment deed executed by other legal hairs of
Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj after probate was granted vide the judgment
dated 20.03.2004 in petition bearing no. PC-333/2001. The
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department could not trace the
recommendation letter issued to the respondent no. 2/DDA and this
was the primary basis for the rejection of case of the petitioner for
execution of lease. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department for the first time came up with a noting on 14.10.2013
that the land allotment to Harpiari was time barred after relying on a
public notice stated to be issued on 22.11.1963. The respondent
no.1/Land & Building Department received a letter issued by the
respondent no. 2/DDA dated 04.04.2013 which was replied by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department vide letter dated
17.07.2013. The petitioner also approached the Hon'ble Lieutenant
Governor of Delhi for execution of lease in his favour and the
Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor asked for a status report from the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department.
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 9
2.4 The respondent no. 2/DDA issued a Show Cause Notice no.
F.27(26)79/LAB(Resdl.)/9241 dated 01.11.2013 whereby the
respondent no. 2/DDA threatened the petitioner to cancel the
allotment of the said alternative plot which was allotted to Harpiari
without any basis, reason and merely on the shoddy communication
made by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department. The
petitioner filed a reply dated 19.03.2014 to show cause notice and
also made several representations in the year 2013-2014 before the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department and the respondent
no. 2/DDA. The petitioner in pursuance of RTI application was
permitted to obtain copies of the required documents and noted
observation made by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor that the letter
dated 05.02.1979 seems to have been issued by the respondent
no.1/Land & Building Department. The petitioner sought certified
copies of certain crucial documents which were not supplied to the
petitioner. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department vide
letter dated 12.12.2013 communicated the decision to the petitioner
that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department on the basis
of available records denies the issue of any recommendation letter to
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 10
the respondent no. 2/DDA and the petitioner was advised not to make
any further representations.
2.5 The respondent no. 2/DDA did not respond to the reply of the
petitioner to the said show cause notice and due to this, the petitioner
filed a Writ Petition bearing no W.P. (C) 2269/2004 and this Court
vide order dated 04.04.2014 directed the respondent no. 2/DDA to
decide the Show Cause Notice on the basis of the reply submitted by
the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 /DDA sent a letter dated
25.04.2014 to the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
along with a copy of the reply dated 19.03.2014 filed by the
petitioner. The respondent no. 2/DDA again sent a letter dated
19.06.2014 to the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department for
confirmation of recommendation regarding allotment of alternative
plot and in said letter, reference was made to letter dated 02.04.1981
issued by the Vigilance Cell of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department and reply letter sent by Harpiari dated 07.07.1981
thereby confirming veracity of the recommendation letter. The
respondent no. 2/DDA in pursuance of order dated 04.04.2014 passed
by this Court wrote a letter no. F.27(26)1979/LAB(Resdl.)/2792
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 11
dated 20.08.2014 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was
requested to take up his case with the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department since the allotment of an alternative plot was
based on the recommendation issued by the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department, thereby showing its inability to process the
case without any instructions from the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department has denied the issuance of the recommendation letter
dated 05.02.1979 for allotment of alternative plot to Harpiari on
baseless, unprofound and frivolous grounds after a lapse of 34 years
and the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department with mala fide
intention refused to direct the respondent no. 2/DDA to execute the
perpetual lease deed in favour of the petitioner in connection of the
alternative plot allotted against the acquired land of Harpiari. The
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department issued a letter dated
22.09.2014 to the respondent no. 2/DDA reiterating that the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department on the basis of
available records denies the issue of any recommendation letter in
favour of Harpiari. The petitioner being aggrieved filed present
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 12
petition and challenged action of the respondents no. 1/Land &
Building Department and the respondent no. 2/DDA on various
grounds including that the act of the respondents in depriving the
petitioner of a duly allotted plot of land amounts to violation of his
fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the
Constitutuion which is also a violation of the principles of natural
justice; the respondent no. 1/Land and Building Department
completely ignored the clarification sought by the DDA vide letter
dated 19.06.2014; the act of the respondent no. 1/Land and Building
Department in denying the issuance of recommendation dated
05.02.1979 to the respondent no. 2/DDA was motivated by mala fide
intentions; Vigilance Department did not make any adverse
observation in respect of the case of the petitioner; the respondent
no. 1/Land and Building Department cannot cancel the allotment of
alternative plot after an inordinate delay of 34 years merely on
presumption, conjectures and surmises; the petitioner who is in
possession of the property since 20.03.1980 is now deemed to have
acquired prescriptive title over the property by adverse possession.
The petitioner has made the following prayer:
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 13
a. Declare and direct that Plot bearing number J-275,
SAKET, NEW DELHI, was validly and legally allotted
to the petitioner's Grand Mother by the Respondent
No. 1.
b. Issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of a
mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 to execute a
perpetual lease deed in favor of the petitioner in
connection of the said alternative plot allotted against'
the acquired land of the petitioner's Grand Mother.
c. Call for the records and the internal noting of
Respondent No.l and Respondent No.2 pertaining to
the plot in question.
d. And any other/ further Relief(s), Order(s), Direction(s)
which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in
the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed
in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.
3. The respondents no. 1 and 3 filed a counter affidavit wherein
after denying the allegations made in the petition, it is stated that the
land of Harpiari admeasuring 8 bigha 17 biswa was acquired vide
award no. 1241 and another piece of land bearing khasra
no.1481/849 (0-18) & 1478/830 (3-9) belonging to Harpiari was
acquired vide award bearing no.1282 and compensation was paid on
22.01.1963. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
issued a public notice on 22.11.1963 for information to general
public that the individuals whose lands have been acquired for PDD
between 01.01.1961 and 15.11.1963 may apply for allotment of
alternative plots in the Department by 15.12.1963. The compensation
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 14
was paid to Harpiari on 22.01.1963 but Harpiari submitted an
application for allotment of alternative plot against the acquired land
on 01.11.1977 i.e. after expiry of last date of 15.12.1963 and
accordingly as per policy, she was not entitled for allotment of
alternative plot. The case of the Harpiari was rejected being
time-barred and the available record does not contain any
recommendation letter in the name of Harpiari. The respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department received a letter dated 10.04.1997
from the respondent no. 2/DDA whereby confirmation was sought
regarding recommendation letter issued by the respondent no. 1/Land
& Building Department in the name of Harpiari and in response, a
letter dated 16.05.1997 was sent to the respondent no. 2/DDA with a
request for providing copy of the recommendation letter but the
respondent no. 2/DDA did not send any reply despite reminder sent
on 26.05.1997. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated
01.07.1997 provided a copy of alleged recommendation letter and on
examination, certain irregularities were found in recommendation
letter such as at the top of the letter file no. F.32(21)/3/77/L&B/Alt
which pertains to Harpiari was mentioned, however at the bottom,
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 15
file no. F.32(21)/4/78/L&B/Alt which was pertaining to one Gangu
s/o Dule Ram was written. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department detected that the respondent no. 2/DDA had received
certain recommendation letters purported to have been issued by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department for allotment of
alternative plot but in fact, these letters were never issued and no files
were maintained in respect of those letters. The recommendation
letters were found to be forged and the matter was reported to the
Vigilance Department and a case was registered by the
Anti-Corruption Branch. The respondent no. 2/DDA had sent a list of
138 such cases which were found to be bogus and forged which also
included name of Gangu Singh. The respondent no. 2/DDA had
allotted alternative plot to Gangu in Malviya Nagar on the basis of
the recommendation letter which was found forged and later on
cancelled the allotment when it was informed by the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department that the letter was forged. Gangu
filed WPC No. 1408/1985 before this Court which was dismissed
with cost of Rs.20,000/- vide order dated 15.04.2004. The
recommendation letter claimed to have been issued by the respondent
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 16
no. 1/Land & Building Department in present petition does not match
with the records available in the file and veracity of letter dated
05.02.1979 was not confirmed. The present petition is liable to be
dismissed as no recommendation letter was ever issued by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department in the name of
Harpiari.
4. The respondent no. 2/DDA also filed a counter affidavit
wherein it is stated that the name of Harpiari was sent to the
respondent no. 2/DDA by the respondent no. 1/Land and Building
Department vide letter no.32(21)/4/78/L&B/Alt dated 05.02.1979 and
the respondent no. 2/DDA on basis of recommendation allotted a plot
no J-275, Malviya Nagar to Harpiari who deposited the premium and
also requested that the plot may be mutated in the name of Giriraj
Singh Bhardwaj. Harpiari on being asked about her relation with
Giriraj Singh, withdrew the request and intimated that she would take
possession of the plot and took possession of the plot on 20.03.1980.
Giriraj Singh applied for mutation vide letter dated 10.01.1986 and
submitted a photocopy of the death certificate of Harpiari and a
registered Will. The respondent no. 2/DDA was intimated by DD/Alt
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 17
Cell vide letter dated 05.07.1982 that the recommendation for
allotment of alternative plot to Harpiari was claimed to have been
made but the relevant file does not disclose issuance of any such
communication from the respondent no. 1/Land and Building
Department. The respondent no. 2/DDA sent letter bearing no.
F.27{26}79/LAB{R}/DDA/1174 dated 04.04.2013 to the respondent
no. 1/Land and Building Department and reminder bearing no.
F.32{21}/3/77 /L&B/ALT dated 17.7.2013 dated 17.07.2013 wherein
it was reiterated that no recommendation was ever issued in favour of
Harpiari for allotment of alternative plot as per available records. The
respondent no. 2/DDA issued a show-cause notice dated 01.11.2013
to the legal heirs of Harpiari and in reply to the said show-cause
notice, a letter was received enclosing a copy of letter bearing no.
F.32(21)/3/77/L&B/VC/15455 dated 02.04.1981 issued by the
Deputy Director, Vigilance Cell, Land and Building Department
whereby a copy of jamabandi for the year 1958-59 duly certified by
the Tehsildar was asked for and was required to be submitted for
confirmation of the recommendation and in said letter a reference of
the reply furnished by Harpiari vide letter dated 07.07.1081 was
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 18
made wherein she stated that jamabandi for the year 1949-50 was
submitted and no jamabandi had ever been issued after 1949-50. The
respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 17.02.1981 issued by the
Joint Secretary, Land and Building Department was clearly advised
that no action is to be taken till the recommendations are confirmed
by the respondent no. 1/Land and Building Department under the
signatures of the Secretary or Joint Secretary of the Land and
Building Department. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide its letter dated
23.04.1981 sought clarification as to whether the Delhi
Administration has any objection in case the said plot is registered.
The respondent no. 2/DDA on the recommendation of the respondent
no. 1/Land and Building Department allotted plot no. J-275, Saket
and handed the same over to Harpiari but subsequently it was found
out that no recommendation letter had ever been issued by the
respondent no. 1/Land and Building Department. The respondent
no. 1/Land and Building Department has to clarify about the status of
the recommendation.
5. The petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 3 wherein in preliminary
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 19
submissions stated that the respondents no. 1 and 3 are adopting
delaying tactics and a considerable period of 35 long years has been
elapsed since the petitioner was allotted the plot but the respondents
no. 1 and 3 are playing blame games with the petitioner and the
respondent no. 2/DDA. The records of respondents no. 1 and 3 are
totally contradictory to the facts stated in the counter affidavit. The
petitioner, in reply on merits, stated that Harpiari submitted 02
different applications, first on 01.11.1977 and the second thereafter.
Harpiari submitted first application in respect of award bearing no.
1241 for khasras bearing no. 1485/1331, 1486/1331 and 1487/1331
and second application was submitted in respect of award bearing no.
1282 for khasras no. 1481/849 (0-18) and 1478/830 (3-9) situated in
Village Baharpur. The respondent no. 1/Land and Building
Department accepted the application for allotment of alternative plot
submitted by Harpiari and thereafter kept corresponding with her and
on various occasions demanded documents from Harpiari. The
respondent no. 1/Land and Building Department accepted and
entertained application of Harpiari and made a recommendation to
the respondent no. 2/DDA and as such the respondent no. 1/Land and
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 20
Building Department cannot call the case of Harpiari as time-barred.
Harpiari was allotted the plot in question after due consideration and
on basis of records, documents and the policy laid down by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department. Harpiari duly
fulfilled and satisfied all the conditions enumerated by the
respondents no. 1 and 3 for allotment of alternative plot. Harpiari was
considered a successful applicant after considering and perusing the
documents submitted by her and the respondent no. 1/Land and
Building Department issued the recommendation letter, allotted the
plot and further gave permission to raise construction on the said
plot. It was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the relief
as sought in the present petition be granted to the petitioner.
6. It is reflecting that the land belonging to Harpiari bearing
khasras no. 1470/820/2, 1478/830, 1481/849, 1485/1331, 1486/1331
and 1487/1331 situated in Village Baharpur was acquired vide award
no.1241 and 1282 in the year 1962 and Harpiari was paid
compensation on 22.01.1963 including enhanced compensation in
pursuance of judgment passed by the Reference Court. The
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department issued a public notice
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 21
on 22.11.1963 to apply for allotment of alternate plot latest by
15.12.1963 to those individuals whose lands have been acquired for
PDD between 01.01.1961 and 15.11.1963. Harpiari submitted an
application on 01.11.1977 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
acquired land under the scheme of 'large scale acquisition,
development and disposal of land in Delhi' i.e. after expiry of last
date of 15.12.1963. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department allegedly issued a letter dated 05.02.1979 recommending
to the respondent no. 2/DDA for allotment of alternative plot
admeasuring 200 sq. yards to Harpiari. The respondent no. 2/DDA
allotted a plot measuring 200 sq. yards (167.226 sq. meters) bearing
no. J-275, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi vide letter dated 27.06.1979
and possession of the plot was delivered to Harpiari on 20.03.1980.
The respondent no. 2/DDA also issued No Objection Certificate on
08.09.1980 to build and use the land for residential purpose in favour
of Harpiari. Harpiari also approached the respondent no. 2/DDA for
execution of lease but the respondent no. 2/DDA sought confirmation
of recommendation from the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department before execution of lease. The respondent no. 2/DDA
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 22
vide DO letter dated 12.11.1980 sent a list of recommendation letters
received from the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
regarding allotment of alternative plots since 01.04.1978. The
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department vide letter dated
17.02.1981 also informed the respondent no. 2/DDA about alleged
malpractices in issue of recommendation letters and reference of
matter to Vigilance Department. The respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department vide letter dated 05.07.1982 issued to the
respondent no. 2/DDA asked for a copy of the recommendation letter
which was supplied by the respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated
06.09.1982. Harpiari passed away on 22.12.1985 and during her
lifetime, she was stated to have executed a registered Will dated
08.09.1981 in favour of Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj who was father of
the petitioner and the petitioner subsequently claimed to have become
the exclusive owner of the plot. The recommendation letter issued to
the respondent no. 2/DDA could not be traced by the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department and due to this reason lease in
respect of plot could be executed. The respondent no. 2/DDA issued
a Show Cause Notice dated 01.11.2013 which was replied by the
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 23
petitioner vide reply dated 19.03.2014. The respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department vide letter dated 12.12.2013 communicated the
decision to the petitioner that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department on the basis of available records denies the issue of any
recommendation letter to the respondent no. 2/DDA. The petitioner
filed a Writ Petition bearing no W.P. (C) 2269/2004 and the
respondent no. 2 vide order dated 04.04.2014 was directed to decide
the Show Cause Notice. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated
10.04.1997 sought confirmation of recommendation regarding
allotment of alternative plot from the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department and the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department denied the issuance of the recommendation letter dated
05.02.1979 for allotment of alternative plot to Harpiari. The
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department claimed that Harpiari
was not entitled for allotment of alternative plot as per policy and her
case was rejected being time-barred and the record does not contain
any recommendation letter in favour of Harpiari.
7. The counsel for the petitioner in written submissions about
factual background of case stated that the land falling in khasra no.
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 24
1478/830 and 1481/849 situated in Village Bahapur and belonged to
Harpiari was acquired vide Award no. 1282 and Harpiari on
01.11.1977 submitted an application for allotment of alternative plot
and the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department issued a
recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 for allotment of alternative
plot measuring 200 sq. yards to the respondent no. 2/DDA and
thereafter the respondent no. 2/DDA issued a provisional demand
letter dated 09.04.1979 to Harpiari who paid provisional demand
within time and thereafter the respondent no. 2/DDA allotted a plot
measuring 200 sq. yards bearing no. J-275, Malviya Nagar vide letter
no. 27(26) /79- LSB(R) dated 27.08.1979. The respondent
no. 2/DDA also issued the certificate of possession dated 20.03.1980
and NOC dated 08.09.1980 to build and use the land for residential
purposes in favour of Harpiari after receipt of cost of plot. The
counsel for the petitioner further stated that the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department vide letter dated 05.07.1982 in
response to the letter dated 12.11.1980 of the respondent no. 2/DDA
asked the respondent no. 2/DDA for a copy of the recommendation
letter dated 05.02.1979 and the respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 25
dated 06.09.1982 provided a copy of the recommendation letter dated
05.02.1979. Harpiari passed away on 22.12.1983 leaving behind a
registered Will dated 08.09.1981 in favour of Giriraj Singh
Bhardwaj, father of the petitioner. The respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department vide letter dated 16.05.1997 and reminder dated
26.05.1997 demanded a copy of letter sent by the respondent
no. 2/DDA dated 06.09.1982 and a copy of recommendation letter
dated 05.02.1979. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated
01.07.1997 supplied copies of letter dated 06.09.1982 along with a
copy of the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 and copy of the
letter dated 05.07.1982 issued by the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department. The petitioner, after demise of Giriraj Singh
Bhardwaj, owner of the plot, in pursuance of the Relinquishment
Deed dated 15.09.2007 executed by other legal heirs in favour of the
petitioner. The respondent no. 2/DDA on 04.04.2013 confirmed
eligibility of the petitioner on the basis of the recorded ownership of
the acquired land. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
on 17.07.2013 on basis of available records did not confirm veracity
of the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 but did not allege
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 26
forgery or fabrication or manipulation. The respondent no. 2/DDA
issued a show cause notice dated 01.11.2013 to the petitioner and this
Court vide order dated 04.04.2014 directed the respondent
no. 2/DDA to decide on the show-cause notice. The respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department did not confirm the
recommendation, hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
7.1 The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondent
no. 2/DDA supported case of the petitioner and in counter affidavit
admitted that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department sent
a recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 in the name of Harpiari
and the respondent no. 2/DDA on the recommendation of the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department allotted plot no.
J-275, Malviya Nagar and thereafter Harpiari deposited the premium
and the possession of the plot was delivered to Harpiari on
20.03.1980. The respondent no. 2/DDA also admitted letters dated
05.07.1982 and 26.08.1982 issued by the respondent no. 1/Land and
Building Department and response of the respondent no. 2/DDA
dated 06.09.1982. It was further argued that case of the petitioner is
genuine.
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 27
7.2 The counsel for the petitioner in response to contention of the
respondents no. 1 and 3 argued that the respondents no. 1 and 3 in
counter affidavit admitted that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department admitted acquisition of land of Harpiari bearing khasras
no. 1478/830 and 1481/849 situated in village Baharpur vide Award
no. 1282 and payment of compensation on 22.01.1963 and
submission of application for allotment of alternative plot by Harpiari
on 01.11.1977. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department resisted execution of
lease deed on ground that the application dated 01.11.1977 submitted
by Harpiari for allotment of alternate plot was rejected being
time-barred in view of public notice dated 22.11.1963 and file noting
dated 25.05.1982 to the effect that "the recommendations made to
the DDA may be withdrawn". The counsel for the petitioner to
counter the said contention of the respondents no. 1 and 3 argued that
the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department never issued
rejection letter to Harpiari in pursuance of noting dated 25.05.1982
and if case of petitioner was rejected on 25.05.1982 then the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department would not issue
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 28
letters dated 05.07.1982, 16.05.1997and 26.05.1997 for seeking copy
of the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 and the respondent
no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 01.07.1997 had supplied the said copy of
the recommendation letter. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department never raised plea of time bar in its earlier
correspondences and the said plea is afterthought. The counsel for the
petitioner relied on Govt. of NCT of Delhi V Poonam Gupta, 2015
SCC Online Del 13854 and Raghu Nath Singh V Union of India &
Others, 44 (1991) DLT 545. The counsel for the petitioner, to
counter contention of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department that recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 issued to
Harpiari was found having irregularities, argued that the respondent
no. 1 has taken this plea for first time in the Court and did not take
such plea in any correspondence till 2015 and said plea is an
afterthought and misplaced. It was further argued that due to
typographical error on the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979,
the case of the petitioner cannot be assumed to be amongst the forged
cases. The counsel for the petitioner also rebutted the argument raised
on behalf of the counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3 that the
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 29
present writ is not maintainable and appropriate remedy is to file a
civil suit. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that argument
raised on behalf of the respondents no. 1 and 3 that letter dated
05.02.1979 issued in favour of Harpiari is not traceable in the record
of the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department is not
sustainable as the letter dated 05.07.1982 issued by the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department reflects that the recommendation
letter was issued by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department and the veracity or the existence of the recommendation
letter cannot be doubted the respondent no. 2/DDA in counter
affidavit admitted that the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979
was provided by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
and the respondent no. 2/DDA allotted plot no. J-275 after acting
upon the recommendation letter to Harpiari. It was argued that the
petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer as the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department could not trace recommendation letter in its
record. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the petition be
allowed and relief claimed in present petition be granted in favour of
the petitioner.
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 30
8. Mr. Siddharth Panda, the counsel for the respondents no. 1 and
3 referred the factual position and stated that Harpiari who was stated
to be the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was stated to have
been allotted alternative residential plot bearing no. J-275, Malviya
Nagar in lieu of acquisition of land on 27.08.1979 by the respondent
no. 2/DDA and possession was also delivered on 20.03.1980 but
lease deed was not executed in favour of the petitioner even after
lapse of more than 34 years. The respondent no. 2/DDA sent a list of
about 721cases and sought confirmation of recommendations from
the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department and the
respondent no. 1 informed that 128 cases appeared to be forged as no
files had been opened by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department, hence the matter was referred to Vigilance Department
and accordingly issue of execution of lease was kept in abeyance.
The respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 12.12.2013 denied the
petitioner and the respondent no.2/DDA about issuance of any
recommendation letter to the respondent no. 2/DDA. Mr. Siddharth
Panda argued that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
issued a public notice on 22.11.1963 whereby general public whose
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 31
lands were acquired between 01.01.1961 and 15.11.1963 was asked
to apply for allotment of alternative plot till 15.12.1963 but Harpiari
applied for allotment of alternative plot on 01.11.1977 i.e., after the
last date of 15.12.1963 and Harpiari, as per policy, was not entitled
for allotment of alternative plot and accordingly her application was
rejected on 25.05.1982 being time-barred and available record does
not speak about issuance of any recommendation letter in favour of
Harpiari. He further stated that the respondent no. 2/DDA provided
copy of alleged recommendation letter vide letter dated 01.07.1997
and on examination, certain irregularities were noticed and argued
that alleged recommendation letter was never issued by the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department and no such file was
ever maintained in respect of recommendation letter. It was argued
that the present petition be dismissed.
9. Ms. Manika Tripathy, the counsel for the respondent
no. 2/DDA advanced oral arguments and also submitted written
submissions. The counsel for the respondent no. 2/DDA besides
referring factual background argued that the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department has to clarify status of the recommendation and
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 32
the respondent no. 2/DDA did not confirm issuance of
recommendation letter. It was stated that the respondent no. 1/Land
& Building Department sent name of Harpiari to the respondent
no. 2/DDA vide letter No. 32(21)/4/78-L&B/Alt dated 05.02.1979
and the respondent no. 2/DDA on recommendation had allotted plot
no. J-275 to Harpiari who deposited the premium. Harpiari vide letter
dated 26.09.1979 requested for mutation of plot in the name of
Giriraj Singh Bhardwaj but subsequently Harpiari took possession of
the plot on 20.03.1980. DD/Alt Cell vide letter no.
F.32(21)3/77/L&B/VC dated 05.07.1982 had intimated the
respondent no. 2/DDA that the relevant record does not disclose
issuance of any communication for recommendation of alternative
plot to Harpiari. The respondent no. 2/DDA issued a show cause to
legal hairs of Harpiari vide office letter no.
F.27(26)79/LAB(R)/DDA/9241 dated 01.11.2013 for clarification
which was replied to by the petitioner. The respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department through Joint Secretary, (L&B) vide letter
issued on 17.02.1981 advised the respondent no. 2/DDA that no
action in certain cases should be taken till the recommendation are
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 33
confirmed by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department. The
respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 23.04.1981 requested for
clarification.
10. The issue which needs consideration is that whether the
petitioner, who claims to be the successor-in-interest of Harpiari, is
entitled for execution of lease deed in respect of alternativee plot
admeasuring 200 square yards bearing no. J-275, Malviya Nagar
which was allotted by the respondent no. 2/DDA to Harpiari in lieu
of acquisition of land on 27.08.1979. The respondent no. 2/DDA
stated to have received letter no. F-32(21)/3/77/ALT/5102 dated
05.02.1979 under signature of Under Secretary (CN) of the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department recommending to the
Land Sales Officer, DDA/the respondent no. 2 for allotment of
alternative plot admeasuring 200 sq. yards to Harpiari, the
genuineness of which is disputed by the respondent no. 1/ Land &
Building Department.
11. Mr. Siddharth Panda, the counsel for the respondents
no. 1 and 3 argued that the application for allotment of alternative
plot submitted by Harpiari on 01.11.1977 was time-barred being
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 34
submitted after late date of 15.12.1963 in pursuance of public notice
issued on 22.11.1963 and as such, the application was rejected on
25.05.1982 being time-barred. The counsel for the petitioner argued
that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department refused
execution of lease deed as application dated 01.11.1977 submitted by
Harpiari for allotment of alternate plot was time-barred in pursuance
of public notice dated 22.11.1963 and subsequent file noting dated
25.05.1982 to the effect that "the recommendations made to the
DDA may be withdrawn" but the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department never issued rejection letter to Harpiari in pursuance of
noting dated 25.05.1982. It was further argued that if case of
petitioner was rejected on 25.05.1982, then the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department would not have issued the letters
dated 05.07.1982, 16.05.1997and 26.05.1997 for seeking copy of the
recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 and the respondent
no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 01.07.1997 had supplied the said copy of
the recommendation letter. The counsel for the petitioner relied on
Govt. of NCT of Delhi V Poonam Gupta, 2015 SCC Online Del
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 35
13854 and Raghu Nath Singh V Union of India & others, 44
(1991) DLT 545.
11.1 A public notice can be considered to be an announcement
made by the government or its any public authority which may be
published in any newspaper or otherwise and purpose of a public
notice may be to inform the general public about any policy decision
or change therein taken by the government or any public authority. A
public notice is important as it intends to keep general public or
interested parties aware about the relevant information. This Court in
NCT of Delhi V Poonam Gupta, 2015 SCC Online Del 13854 and
also relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner referred Simla Devi
V Secretary, W.P.(C) No 16425/2004 decided on 28.03.2007
wherein it was observed that a public notice is neither a statutory
notice nor gazetted notice which is presumed to have been known by
everyone and if notice was published in the newspapers only once in
1993, then it is unrealistic and impractical to presume that someone
in 1997 applying for allotment of alternative land should be
presumed to know the time limit which is stipulated in a notice
printed in the newspaper four years earlier. This court in NCT of
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 36
Delhi V Poonam Gupta (supra) observed that the time limit set in
the public notice cannot be held to be final and conclusive so as to
preclude the persons whose lands are acquired from being considered
for allotment of the alternative land under the Scheme. It was further
observed that the long delay in making the application under the
Scheme is a factor to draw an inference that there is no actual need of
the alternative plot, however it cannot be held that all the applications
which are made beyond the period prescribed in the public notice
shall be rejected as barred by limitation. The counsel for the
petitioner also relied on Raghu Nath Singh V Union of India &
others, 44 (1991) DLT 545 wherein the Division Bench of this Court
after relying on S.B. Kishore V Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 90
observed that in cases in which explanation was found to be
satisfactory, the Delhi Administration has been using its discretion to
condone the delay and granted alternative plots and the Delhi
Administration having once accepted the explanation of the petitioner
and recommended the allotment of alternative plot and the Delhi
Development Authority having reserved a plot for the petitioner then
it is difficult to sustain the subsequent action of the respondents
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 37
withdrawing the allotment on the basis of the general policy decision
taken by the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration at some later
stage.
11.2 It is true that the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department invited applications for allotment of alternative plots in
pursuance of public notice dated 22.11.1963 latest by 15.12.1963
from individuals whose lands have been acquired during the period
between 01.01.1961 and 15.11.1963 but Harpiari submitted such
application on 01.11.1977 i.e. after expiry of last date of 15.12.1963
and inordinate delay of 12 years. The application for allotment of
alternative plot submitted by Harpiari as such, was time-barred and
due to this reason, the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department
did not allot alternative plot to Harpiari. The perusal of noting dated
25.05.1982 also reflected that the case of Harpiari for allotment of
alternative plot was rejected being time-barred and recommendation
made to the respondent no. 2/DDA was ordered to be withdrawn.
There was as such, no occasion for the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department to allot alternative plot to Harpiari in lieu of
acquired land validly and legally once the application for allotment of
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 38
alternate plot was not made in time and moreover. there was
unexplained delay of about 12 years. The noting dated 25.05.1982
also reflected that recommendation was not placed on file/record. A
public notice does have its relevance and significance and cannot be
rejected or discarded merely on ground of delay if not properly
explained. Even if it is presumed that Harpiari was not having
knowledge of public notice but neither Harpiari nor the petitioner has
explained inordinate delay of about 12 years in submitting
application for allotment of alternative plot. The short delay in
responding to public notice can be understandable but inordinate
delay of 12 years cannot be condoned easily particularly when there
is no record of issuance of recommendation letter by the respondent
no. 1/Land & Building Department. Further, the argument advanced
by the counsel for the petitioner that if case of petitioner was rejected
on 25.05.1982, then the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department would not have issued letters dated 05.07.1982,
16.05.1997 and 26.05.1997 for seeking copy of the recommendation
letter dated 05.02.1979 and the respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter
dated 01.07.1997 had supplied the said copy of the recommendation
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 39
letter are also considered. The arguments advanced by the counsel for
the petitioner are without any basis as noting dated 25.05.1982
reflects that recommendation to allot alternative plot to Harpiari was
also not available on record and once recommendation was not on
record there was no occasion for the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department to convey rejection to Harpiari.
12. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department vide letter
dated 16.05.1997 and subsequent reminder dated 26.05.1997,
requested the respondent no. 2/DDA to provide a copy of
recommendation letter issued by the respondent no. 1/Land &
Building Department for purpose of confirmation of recommendation
in favour of Harpiari. The respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated
01.07.1997 provided a copy of the recommendation letter dated
05.02.1979. The counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 3 argued that
certain irregularities were noticed on examination in copy of
recommendation letter which was provided by the respondent
no. 2/DDA and the alleged recommendation letter was never issued
by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department. The counsel
for the petitioner argued that allegation of alleged irregularities found
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 40
in the copy of recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 supplied by
the respondent no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 01.07.1997 to the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department is an afterthought and
baseless as the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department never
took such plea till filing of reply. It was further argued that the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department is confusing file no.
F.32(21)/3/77-L&B/Alt./5102 pertaining to Harpiari with file no.
F.32(21)/4/78-L&B/Alt./5202 pertaining to Gangu Singh and it was
merely a typographical error.
12.1 The perusal of recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 reveals
that it contains two different file numbers which are
F.32(21)/3/77-L&B/Alt./5102 at the top stated to be pertaining to
Harpiari and F.32(21)/4/78-L&B/Alt./5202 stated to be pertaining to
Gangu Singh who was allotted plot at Malviya Nagar but allotment
was cancelled as it was outcome of a forged recommendation letter.
It is also pertinent to mention that there is no record available with
the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department regarding issuance
any recommendation letter to the respondent no. 2 for allotment of
alternative plot to Harpiari. The recommendation letter dated
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 41
05.02.1979 alleged to have been issued in favour of Harpiari for
allotment of alternative plot by the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department to the respondent no. 2/DDA does not inspire any
confidence in absence of any convincing material indicating towards
issuance of recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 and its
genuineness is under clouds of suspicion. There is no force in
argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that alleged
irregularities in recommendation letter were typographical errors
under given facts and circumstances of case. It does not make any
difference if the respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department took
plea of irregularities at a much later stage as it was for the petitioner
to establish that the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 was a
genuine document. There is no material to establish that the
recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 travelled from the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department to the respondent
no.2/DDA after being issued or dispatched.
13. The respondent no. 2/DDA issued a Show Cause Notice dated
01.11.2013 to the petitioner which was replied to by the petitioner
vide reply dated 19.03.2014. The respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 42
Department vide letter dated 12.12.2013 as per available record, also
communicated to the petitioner regarding denial of issuance of any
recommendation letter to the respondent no. 2/DDA. The respondent
no. 2/DDA vide letter dated 10.04.1997 issued in pursuance of order
dated 04.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition bearing no W.P.(C)
2269/2004 sought confirmation of recommendation from the
respondent no. 1/Land & Building Department regarding allotment of
alternative plot to Harpiari but the respondent no. 1/Land & Building
Department denied the issuance of any such recommendation letter
dated 05.02.1979. There is no material or document which can
convincingly establish that the recommendation letter dated
05.02.1979 for allotment of alternative plot was ever issued to
Harpiari. The petitioner, being successor-in-interest of Harpiari is not
entitled for any relief on basis of alleged recommendation letter dated
05.02.1979. There is no evidence or material to prove or establish
that the recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 was ever issued to
Harpiari and was actually sent to the respondent no. 2/DDA although
a copy of recommendation letter dated 05.02.1979 was available in
record of the respondent no. 2/DDA but this doesn't mean that the
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 43
respondent no. 2/DDA received genuine recommendation letter for
allotment of alternative plot to Harpiari. The arguments advanced by
the counsel for the petitioner are considered in right perspective but
do not provide any legal support to the case of the petitioner.
14. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is
dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
(JUDGE)
JULY 30, 2024
AM
Signing Date:01.08.2024 W.P.(C) 7931/2014 Page 44
