SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking the implementation of a policy of the Delhi Administration to allot alternative residential plots in lieu of land compulsorily acquired for the planned development of Delhi. The relevant facts are as follows:-

.2. To begin with, four brothers, namely, Harphool, Lakhi Ram, Ram Nath and Indraj, jointly owned agricultural land measuring 14 bighas 5 biswas situated in revenue estate of village Nangloi, Delhi. On 4th March, 1963, this land was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and, ultimately, on 4th March, 1967, award No. 1957, inter alia, pertaining to this land was announced and compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector was received by all the four brothers. On 11th August, 1973, one of the brothers, Harphool died. He bequeathed all benefits arising out of the aforesaid land in favour of two of his nephews,

.namely, Dharam Pal and Jai Pal, both of whom are the sons of his brother Indraj. Consequent upon this, even the compensation assessed later on by the court towards the late Harphool’s share was paid to them.

3. On 8th August, 1986, the second petitioner Jai Pal relinquished his share in the inheritance received under the aforesaid Will of his uncle Harphool in favour of the other co-legatee, namely, Dharam Pal, i.e., the first petitioner before us.

4. On 27th May, 1987, one of the surviving brothers Indraj applied to the respondent for an alternative plot in lieu of their aforesaid agricultural land under the extant policy. The other two, Lakhi Ram and Ram Nath also made similar applications. On 2nd June, 1987, the first petitioner, Dharam Pal, also applied for the same as the successor of late Harphool, who also happened to be his uncle, as aforesaid.

5. It appears that on 17th August, 1989, the first respondent recommended the allotment of a plot of 250 sq. yds. to Mohar Singh who is the son of one of the aforesaid brothers, Lakhi Ram. Again, on 30th December, 1988, the first respondent recommended that another plot of 250 sq. yds. be allotted to Zile Singh who was the son of another brother, namely, Ram Nath. Presumably, both Lakhi Ram and Ram Nath had expired by that time and, therefore, the allotments were made to Mohar Singh and Zile Singh as their sons and legal heirs. This left the entitlement of the two remaining brothers, namely, Indraj and Harphool.

6. On 27th October, 1988, Jai Pal, the son of one of the brothers, Indraj, applied to the Assistant Housing Commissioner (Loans), Delhi Administration, Delhi informing him that his father Indraj died on 29th July, 1988, the alternative plot in question be allotted to him instead. Ultimately, on 27th June, 1991, the first respondent recommended allotment of a single plot of 250 sq. yds. to both Dharam Pal and Jaipal, both of whom are sons of Indraj in lieu of the entitlement of Indraj who had since died.

.7. However, since the application by Dharam Pal claiming allotment of the alternative plot in lieu of his late uncle Harphool was ignored and the respondent had merely directed a joint allotment of a single plot measuring 250 sq. yds. to Dharam Pal and Jai Pal as the sons of the other brother Indraj, a legal notice was sent to the respondents on 10th January, 1992 clarifying the position and pointing out that both Dharam Pal and Jai Pal were in fact entitled to one plot each. This was because on the one hand, they were entitled to one plot in lieu of the entitlement of their late father Indraj, while on the other hand, they had become entitled to another plot in lieu of the entitlement of their late uncle Harphool because the same had been bequeathed by him to them. As regards the alternative plot that they were entitled to in lieu of entitlement of their late father Indraj, it was pointed out that both Dharam Pal and Jai Pal had further entered into a mutual agreement whereby Dharam Pal had relinquished his share in that plot in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document