( 1 ) THE writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of an alternative plot as a consequence of the acquisition of the land of Shri Bhikan, grand-father of the petitioner under the scheme for alternative allotment of plot against large scale acquisition of land.

( 2 ) THE factual matrix is not in dispute to the extent that late Shri Bhikan owned an agricultural land in Shakarpur and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 3. 9. 1957. Award No. 1179 was issued was made on 7. 8. 1961. The payment of the compensation was received on 27. 9. 1961 by Shri Khem Chand, son of late Shri Bhikan. Shri Bhikan was survived by four sons - Ami Chand, Tek Chand, Deep Chand and Khem Chand. Shri Ami Chand died in 1962 and is survived by his son Prahlad. Shri Khem Chand, who also passed away, is survived by the present petitioner since the brothers of the petitioner have executed a Deed of Relinquishment dated 28. 07. 1998 in his favour.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein made an application on 15. 12. 1986 for allotment of the alternative plot on the basis of the authorisation received from all the land-owners. This application was rejected on 10. 6. 1988. The said letter states as under:

"your case for allotment of alternative plot was put up before the Jt. Secretary (Landb) and I am directed to state that following observations had been made with regard to your case:- 1. The copy of LR-4 submitted by you is in the name of Shri Bigan which shows that he is the owner of 9. 12 bigas of land and copy of mutation submitted by you is in favour of Shri Ami Chand, Deep Chand, Khem Chand, Tek Chand. The mutation done in favour of Chander Bose s/o Shri Khem Chand has not been submitted so far. Moreover, the compensation has been received by Shri Khem Chand. 2. The policy of this Deptt. with regard to allotment of alternative plot is this that land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi between 1st Jan. 1961 and 15th Nov. , 1963, the application should have been received by 15th Dec. , 1983. Sufficient press coverage was given regarding this decision and since our application received on 15. 12. 1986, the same is time-barred and even compensation has been received on 27. 9. 61. Therefore, we have no option but to close the case. "

( 4 ) THE writ petition challenging the aforesaid letter of rejection was filed by the petitioner on 17. 9. 1999.

( 5 ) THE defence raised by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 is that there is inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in first making the application and thereafter in filing the present writ petition.

( 6 ) A reading of the impugned letter dated 10. 6. 1988 shows that in so far as the issue of delay is concerned, it has been stated that the application should have been received by 15. 12. 1963 and sufficient press coverage was given for the said purpose. In this behalf, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the learned single Judge of this court in Smt. Sundari Bala v. Lt. Governor and Ors. , 86 (2000) DLT 505. In the said case also, the land of the petitioner therein was acquired and award was passed on 16. 5. 1961 and the petitioner received the compensation in April, 1969. The application for allotment of alternative land was filed by the petitioner in 1982. A reference has been made to the Public Notice issued by the respondents in which application from persons whose land was acquired between the period from 1. 1. 1961 to 15. 11. 1963 were called for consideration and were required to be submitted by 15. 12. 1963.

( 7 ) IT was held that there was inordinate delay in making the application for which no explanation was forthcoming. It was also noticed that in view of the Full Bench judgment of this court in Ramanand v. Union of India, AIR 1994 Delhi 29, it has been held that there is no absolute right for allotment of such a plot but the eligible persons are liable to be considered for allotment of a pl