Respondents unjustly dismissed the petitioner's application for an alternative plot due to lack of notified requirements, leading the court to quash the decision and remand the case for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT

Yashwant Varma, J. (ORAL)--The present writ petition challenges an order passed by the respondents rejecting the application made by the petitioner for grant of an alternative plot in lieu of acquisition.

2. Undisputedly the petitioner's land was subjected to proceedings of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and formed part of the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the enactment on 27 October 1999 and 3 April 2000. The petitioner is stated to have made an application for the grant of an alternative plot in light of the policy as framed by the respondents. On the record is a communication of 5 August 2003 addressed by the respondents pointing out to the petitioner various deficiencies in the application that was made. The petitioner in response to that notice is stated to have submitted a reply on 22 September 2013 pointing out that all documents had been duly submitted along with the original application except for the letter mentioned at serial number 12 of the communication of 5 August 2003. The matter remained undecided till the passing of the impugned order by the respondents on 2 June 2020.

3. In the impugned order the respondents have proceeded to record that although the petitioner was called upon to personally appear before them on 25 November 2017 and support his claim for allotment of an alternative plot, he chose not to avail of that opportunity. The respondents have also then referred to the notices issued on 2 September 2016 and 10 November 2017 which, according to them, remained unattended too. They have lastly referred to a public notice which was issued on 13 May 2018 calling upon all to submit requisite documents so that their pending applications for grant of alternative plots may be disposed of. It is their case that despite the aforesaid notices being issued, the petitioner failed to attend to the proceedings which were pending or to comply with the requirements as have pointed out by them. The application has ultimately come to be rejected with the respondents recording that it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing his claim.

4. Assailing the aforesaid order, the petitioner has in paragraph 12 contended that no notices as are referred to in the impugned order were ever served on the petitioner and that even the publication of the other notices could not be ascertained. The contention in essence is that after complying with all requirements, the petitioner was never informed that any further formalities were required to be completed for the consideration and disposal of the application made.

5. The order sheet of the present matter reflects that although time had been granted on previous occasions to the respondents to file a counter affidavit, no affidavit in opposition to the writ petition was filed. The Court ultimately on 26 November 2021 had observed that in case no affidavit is filed within the extended time granted, the matter would proceed ex parte and on the state of the record as it exists. Today when the matter is taken up, the position remains the same with the respondents having failed to file a response to the writ petition despite the repeated opportunities granted earlier. This constrains the Court to record that the assertion of the petitioner that he was never placed on notice of the requirements to be complied with has gone unrebutted. The respondents, in view of the above, were clearly unjustified in holding that the petitioner appeared to be disinterested in pursuing his claim. Since that aspect alone forms the bedrock of the order impugned here, is clearly rendered unsustainable. The circumstances would thu