JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The Petitioner - Mr. Ajay Bajpai who had ownership rights in the land measuring 1 bigha (1000 sq. yards), bearing Khasra No. 18/17/1(0-8) and 18/16/2(0-12) situated at Village Pochan Pur, Delhi (hereinafter ‘subject property’) has filed the present petition.

2. The Petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his application dated 12th June, 2003 for allotment of an alternative plot in accordance with the scheme of allotment of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land under large scale acquisition development & disposal of land in Delhi announced by Union of India - Ministry of Home Affairs.

3. The case of the Petitioner is that vide notification dated 13th December, 2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 followed by Notification of Declaration dated 7th December, 2002 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the subject property of the Petitioner was acquired by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as part of acquisition done for the purpose of development of Dwarka Phase II, Delhi.

4. An award dated 9th December, 2002 was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, Delhi, awarding compensation of Rs.4,43,268/- to the Petitioner towards acquisition of the subject property.

5. The Petitioner challenged the quantum of compensation before the Ld. Additional District Judge, however, the same was rejected. The Petitioner, thereafter, submitted an application seeking allotment of an alternative plot on 12th June, 2003 which was rejected vide letter dated 26th March, 2015. The said letter was challenged by the Petitioner vide W.P.(C) 10579/2015 titled Ajai Bajpai v. Union of India & Ors.

6. The said petition was allowed and vide order dated 2nd September, 2016 certain directions were passed by this Court. The said directions are as follows:

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly his case has not been considered on merits; it has been rejected only for the reason that the documents had not been furnished for which the petitioner has furnished a justifiable explanation. This Court notes this submission and is in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The communications details afore show that the efforts had been made by the petitioner to furnish all the documents to the Department and in fact most of the documents had allegedly been furnished on 19.12.2013; the Department was not justified but the next contention of the petitioner (which is borne out from his RTI application) that these letters were not addressed at his address has also been noted.

The view of the Court is that the case of the petitioner should be considered on merits. The rejection letter dated 26.03.2015 is accordingly set aside. The case of the petitioner be decided on merits. This Court also notes that the application seeking allotment of plot was within time. If all the documents have not already been furnished by the petitioner, the same shall be furnished to the Department on affidavit within three weeks from today.”

7. As per the above order, the Court was clearly of the opinion that the application of the Petitioner was filed within time and the documentation was also complete. Thus, the rejection was set aside and a direction was issued to consider the application for allotment of alternate plot, on merits.

8. Despite the abovementioned order, the case of the Petitioner is that all the requisite documents have been submitted, however, decision was not taken on the Petitioner’s application for an alternative plot. Thus, the Petitioner was constrained to filed the present writ petition, in early 2022, seeking the following reliefs:

“A) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus inter-alia directing the Respondent no. 4 to expeditiously and without any delay, send the status report on the contents of the Application and Affidavit filed by the Petitioner before Respondent No. 3, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and in accordance with law;

B