Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Smt. Prem Ghai & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate North & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1371/2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
Notice - Allotment of Alternative Plot - The court allowed the writ petition subject to the petitioner depositing costs and furnishing requisite documents within a specified period. The respondents were directed to consider the application expeditiously and in accordance with the law and rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of their application for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of their acquired land, citing lack of awareness of notices and the requirement to submit documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition, subject to the petitioner depositing costs and furnishing requisite documents within a specified period. The respondents were directed to consider the application expeditiously and in accordance with the law and rules.
Issues: Rejection of application for allotment of alternative plot, lack of awareness of notices and requirement to submit documents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's lack of awareness of notices and the requirement to submit documents, and directed the petitioner to deposit costs and furnish requisite documents within a specified period, while directing the respondents to consider the application expeditiously and in accordance with the law and rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed subject to the petitioner depositing costs and furnishing requisite documents within a specified period. The respondents were directed to consider the application expeditiously and in accordance with the law and rules.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.:-- (Oral)
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns order dated 28.10.2020 whereby the application of the petitioner dated 15.01.2004 for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of his land acquired in village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi has been rejected.
3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up hearing today.
4. The impugned order dated 28.10.2020 records that two notices were issued to the petitioner but petitioner failed to submit the requisite documents.
5. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner never received the said notices or became aware of any notice published in the newspaper as their predecessor-in-interest i.e. their father had expired in the year 2009.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are residents of Jalandhar, Punjab and as such were never aware of the requirement of furnishing any further documents to the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment dated 01.10.2018 in W.P(C)11557/2017 titled Rishi Pal vs. Land & Building Department wherein in similar circumstances the matter has been remitted to the respondents to reconsider the application for allotment of an alternative plot, putting petitioner to terms for the delay in furnishing the documents.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed subject to petitioner depositing costs in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the PM Cares Fund.
9. Petitioner shall furnish the requisite documents to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today and thereafter the respondents shall consider the application of the petitioners expeditiously preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the furnishing of documents by the petitioner.
10. The case of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and rules and the seniority of the petitioner.
11. Petitioners shall furnish the receipt of deposit of cost before the competent authority along with submitting his documents within four weeks.
12. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
13. Copy of the Order be uploaded on the High Court website and be also forwarded to learned counsels through email.
The court emphasized the importance of complying with notice requirements and submitting requisite documents in applications for allotment of alternative plots, while also directing expeditious consi....
The court emphasized that failure to receive notices does not negate the petitioner's right to due process, allowing reconsideration of their application for an alternative plot.
Failure to submit requisite documents within the specified time frame may be reconsidered if the petitioner subsequently produces the necessary documentation.
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, allowing reconsideration of applications when new evidence is presented, even if initial requirements were not met.
A petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 based on an application made 54 years after the initial policy deadline due to gross delay and laches.
The main legal point established is that applications for alternative plot allotment made in line with the respondent's advice and within the specified time should not be rejected based on limitation....
The exemption of the limitation period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic can be relied upon to justify the delay in approaching the court.
Respondents unjustly dismissed the petitioner's application for an alternative plot due to lack of notified requirements, leading the court to quash the decision and remand the case for fresh conside....
The court emphasized the importance of considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and granting them an opportunity of hearing in the case of allotment of an alternative plot.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
