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 per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the orders issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi.

JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present appeal the Appellant seeks to challenge the Order dated 25.04.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.25/2020, dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant herein challenging the Order dated 15.04.2014, passed by the Recommendation Committee of GNCTD, rejecting the application of the Appellant herein for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of land acquired by the Government.

2. The Appellant herein and his brothers were joint owners of 34 Bighas of land comprising Khasra. Nos. 34/24, 37/4, 440, 11, 12, 44/19, 20, 195/70 and 71 in Village Kakrola, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as `the land in question') of which the Appellant had 1/4th share. It is stated that the land in question was acquired by the State vide notification No. F. 10(6)/88-L&B(2) dated 06.12.1991. An award, being award No. 1/93-94 dated 02.04.1993, was passed and the compensation was paid in two tranches. The first tranche of Rs.5,01,602.97/- was paid on 28.09.1993 and the second tranche of Rs.2,18,191/- was paid on 28.04.2000. It is stated that on 26.05.2000, the Appellant herein filed an application for allotment of an alternative plot under para E of the Scheme of "Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi" which was announced by the Government vide letter dated 02.05.1961 bearing No.37/16/60-Delhi (1). It is stated that the relevant documents were supplied by the Appellant to the Respondents vide letter dated 26.07.2005. It is further stated that a recommendation Committee was constituted by Respondent No.2 in the year 2013 for recommendation of grant of alternative plot and as per the minutes of meeting dated 04.09.2013, the Appellant was given a last opportunity to submit an affidavit, indemnity bond and other documents. It is stated that all the documents were produced by the Appellant. It is further stated that the Recommendation Committee, in its meeting dated 07.03.2014 rejected the claim of the Appellant herein for grant of alternative plot on the ground that the application of the Appellant herein for grant of alternative plot was time barred as the Appellant had received the compensation of the acquired land on 28.09.1993 and the application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted on 26.05.2000, which is beyond the prescribe time limit of one year. Thereafter, the Appellant filed W.P.(C) No.25/2020.

3. Before the learned Single Judge it was contended that certain co-owners of the land in question had filed a Writ Petition, being W.P.(C) 2605/2015 titled as Vidyawati @Vidya Devi and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., and a learned Single Judge of this Court vide Order dated 25.02.2016 has accepted their claim and had directed the authorities to reconsider the application of the Petitioners therein for allotment of an alternative land in lieu of the acquired land and consequently an alternate plot was allotted to the Petitioners therein. It was, therefore, contended that the Appellant's case being identical to the case of Vidyawati (supra) and since both are the co-owners of the land in question, the Appellant ought to have been given the same benefits.

4. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the Writ Petition on the ground that the Writ Petition is barred by limitation, has distinguished the case of the Appellant herein from the case of Vidyawati (supra) on the ground that the Petitioners therein had filed the application for grant of alternative land much earlier and that the Appellant herein has filed his application for grant of alternative land only after the decision in Vidyawati (supra). The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on another judgment dated 26.07.2017, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 5511/2016, titled as Vijay & Anr. vs. Land & Building Department, dealing with the same notification wherein the learned Single Judge has accepted the contention of the State that the period of one year would start from 1993 when the first