IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ms. K.C. Sharma Company - Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.13560 Of 2022 & CM APPL. No.41307 Of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2023
Acquisition of land - Allotment of alternative plot - Petitioner seeks directions against respondents for considering case of petitioner for allotment of alternative plot of land in lieu of acquisition of land – Held, Standing counsel appearing for respondents submits that all persons who are entitled for alternative allotment of plots have already been allotted plots - Thus, he submits that petitioner as such has no case for alternative allotment of land - Considering submissions made before this Court, it is deemed expedient to dispose of present writ petition with directions to respondents to consider present writ petition as representation and consider case of petitioner – Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
[Mini Pushkarna, J.] :
1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondents for considering the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot of land in lieu of acquisition of the land bearing khasra no. 14/9(4-09), 12(4-16), 17(4-16), 18(4-16), 19(4-16), 20/1(2-12), 23(4-16), 24(5-10) total measuring 36 bighas 11 biswas at Village Lohar- Heri Palam vide award no. 161-86-87 dated 19.09.1986.
2. It is submitted that vide judgment dated 14.08.2020 in Civil Appeal no. 9049/2011, the Supreme Court has upheld the entitlement of the petitioner company to the extent of 87% of the amount of compensation, as was held by the Learned ADJ vide its order dated 28.09.1989. The balance 13% compensation was given to Gaon Sabha against the acquisition of the land in question. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled for alternative allotment of land, as per the policy of the respondents.
3. Mr. Yeeshu Jain, standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that all the persons who are entitled for alternative allotment of plots have already been allotted the said plots. Thus, he submits that the petitioner as such has no case for alternative allotment of land.
4. Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is deemed expedient to dispose of the present writ petition with directions to the respondents to consider the present writ petition as representation and consider the case of the petitioner.
5. However, it is directed that all rights and contentions of the parties are kept open and this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. The respondents are given liberty to consider the representation of the petitioner for alternative allotment of land on merits. The respondents would also be at liberty to ask for any other documents that may be required for the purposes of considering the case of the petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all requisite documents have already been submitted to the respondents. However, in case, there are any further documents that may be required by the respondents, the petitioner may submit the same with the respondents.
8. It is directed that the representation of the petitioner shall be decided expeditiously by the respondents, preferably within a period of 10 weeks from today.
9. The petitioner shall be called for hearing by the respondents and given a personal hearing at the time of adjudication of his representation.
10. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of along with pending applications.
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 court emphasized the right to be heard and the consideration of requisite documents in the process of alternative land allotment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's claim for an alternative plot was allowed based on the finding that the petitioner's land was acquired completely, and the co....
The court's decision emphasized the need to consider ancestral property in extended abadi areas and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the case for alternate allotment of land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner in the ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for grant of alternative land under the Scheme of 1961 must be strictly adhered to, and the application for alternative land sh....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for allotment of alternative land should be made within one year of the receipt of compensation as fixed by the Collector, as ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.