Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 1879
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Gopal Krishan Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Land & Building Department – Respondent
W.P.(C) 5014 of 2016
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Mr. N.S. Dalal, Mr. Alok Kumar, Ms. Rachana Dalal, Ms. Sweta Kadyan, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Ms. Manisha, Advocates, for the Respondent-1.
Ms. Manisha Agrawal Narain, Mr. Sandeep Singh Somaria, Ms. Rakshita Goyal, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the stand taken by the Land and Building Department in satisfying the petitioner's prayer, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Headnote:
Land Allotment - Allotment of alternative plot - Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 - [Allotment of plot under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961] - [Summary: The court addressed the issue of the purported letter directing the abeyance of the recommendation for allotment of an alternative plot to the petitioner. The Land and Building Department denied issuing such a letter, and it was evident that the petitioner had already taken possession of the alternative plot based on the recommendation letter issued in his favor. The court disposed of the petition based on the satisfaction of the petitioner's prayer due to the stand taken by the Land and Building Department.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from a purported letter directing the abeyance of the recommendation for allotment of an alternative plot. The Land and Building Department denied issuing such a letter, and it was evident that the petitioner had already taken possession of the alternative plot based on the recommendation letter issued in his favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Land and Building Department had denied issuing the letter directing the abeyance of the recommendation for allotment of an alternative plot. It was evident that the petitioner had already taken possession of the alternative plot based on the recommendation letter issued in his favor. The court disposed of the petition based on the satisfaction of the petitioner's prayer due to the stand taken by the Land and Building Department.
Issues: The main issue was the alleged letter directing the abeyance of the recommendation for allotment of an alternative plot, which was denied by the Land and Building Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the denial of the alleged letter by the Land and Building Department and the petitioner's already taken possession of the alternative plot based on the recommendation letter issued in his favor.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition based on the satisfaction of the petitioner's prayer due to the stand taken by the Land and Building Department.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)--By way of the present petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the purported letter dated 09.01.2012 issued by Land and Building Department, by which the Land and Building Department had directed the DDA to keep in abeyance the recommendation for allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner. Earlier, the Land and Building Department had recommended allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner by way of Recommendation Letter dated 02.07.2004 under the Allotment of plot under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961.
2. The facts in brief are that the land of the father of the petitioner forming part of Khasra No. 1281/873/3/1, total land measuring 5 bighas 1 biswas situated in the Revenue estate of village Bahapur, Delhi, was acquired vide award No. 1299. Pursuant thereto, possession of the land was also taken over. The father of the petitioner applied for allotment of an alternative plot as per the rehabilitation policy of the respondent.
3. Father of the petitioner died on 22.02.2003 and after his death, the petitioner pursued the matter with the respondent. Ultimately, Recommendation Letter dated 02.07.2004 was issued to the petitioner, which was addressed to the Commissioner (Land), DDA with direction to the DDA to allot a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yds. to the petitioner in lieu of his acquired land.
4. On the basis of the Recommendation Letter, the DDA allotted an alternative plot to the petitioner in the year 2010. The petitioner deposited the entire amount as was demanded by the DDA towards the cost of the plot. Possession of the alternative plot was taken over by the petitioner in the year 2010 itself.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that later on it came to his notice that the Land and Building Department had written a letter to the DDA thereby directing the DDA to keep in abeyance 7 recommendations, which had been made by it, which also included the recommendation in favour of the petitioner.
6. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that once the recommendation has been made, then the respondent has no right to pass any order for keeping the same in abeyance. Further, no notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of the letter dated 09.01.2012, directing the DDA to keep the recommendation letter in favour of the petitioner in abeyance. The Petitioner has not been conveyed any reason for keeping the recommendation in abeyance and no Principles of Natural Justice were followed before issuing such a letter.
7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1, Land and Building Department has controverted the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. She has drawn the attention of this Court to its counter affidavit, wherein it is clearly stated that the Land and Building Department has never issued any such letter dated 09.01.2012 for keeping the recommendation letter in abeyance. The relevant paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 are as follows:
"COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO.1
I, Sanjay Jain S/o Late Sh. R. K. Jain, aged around 52 years presently posted as (Deputy Secretary) (Alternative) with the Land & Building Department, GNCTD, New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
...........
4. That vide the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought the quashing of the letter dated 9.1.2012 allegedly issued by the Land & Building Department to the DDA for putting certain recommendation letters in abeyance including the recommendation letter issued in the name of the petitioner herein. It is submitted that the answering respondent has searched the entire records relating to the issuance of the alleged letter and it was observed that the Land & Building Department has never issued any such letter dated 9.1.2012 by which the request was made to the DDA to keep the recommendation letters in abeyance. It is submitte
