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.

JUDGMENT

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]

Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)

CM APPL.28477/2023(Application under Section 151 of CPC for exemption from filing certified/original/dim copies of the annexures)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 7317/2023

3. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (South West), which as per the petition, was communicated to the petitioner on 13.10.2022. By way of the order dated 17.03.2022, the claims of the petitioner for allotment of alternate plot have been rejected. The reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is that the petitioner has an ancestral house in Molaband Extension, New Delhi-110044, with a built up area of 100 sq. meters. Thus, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the said ground.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of Chhoto Devi Vs. Land & Building Department, order dated 12.10.2017 in W.P.(C) 8179/2014. By reference to the said judgment, it is submitted that in the said case, despite the said petitioner having property located in extended abadi area, the Court remanded back the matter to the Revenue Authority for reconsideration.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P4, Minutes of Meeting dated 27.02.2018 issued by the Land and Building Department. By reference to the said Minutes of Meeting, it is submitted that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 8179/2014, was ultimately followed by the respondent and the Recommendation Committee, duly recommended allotment of alternative plot to the petitioner in the case of Chhoto Devi Vs. Land & Building, after the case was considered pursuant to remand by this Court.

6. Thus, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein that the petitioner also has ancestral property only in extended abadi and that the said fact will not disentitle the petitioner from allotment of alternative plot.

7. Mr. Sanjay Pathak, Learned counsel appearing for the respondents appearing on advance notice on the other hand, vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. He relies upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Case of Ranveer Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Another and other connected matters, 2017 SCC Online Del 10794. Learned counsel relies upon Paras 28 and 56 of the aforesaid judgment to contend that there is no enforceable claim for allotment of alternative plot which is vested in the petitioner. Thus, he submits that the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected.

8. Per contra learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 6313/2018, in the earlier proceedings initiated by the petitioner. She submits that the only objection raised earlier by the respondents was with respect to the area of the land that was acquired. Thus, on that ground it had been held by the respondents that the petitioner and his brother were not entitled for grant of allotment of alternative plot. However, subsequently, the petitioner herein submitted that his brother had already relinquished his right in favour of the petitioner herein. Thus, by way of order dated 01.06.2018 passed in W.P.(C) 6313/2018, this Court had directed the respondents herein to reconsider the case of the petitioner again, considering the fact that the objection with respect to the area of the land had already been removed by the petitioner in view of the whole land being vested in him.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to the office noting of the respondents, which is placed on record before this Court. In the office noting attached as Annexure P-12 along with the present writ petition, there is a clear noting by the respondents that the petitioner