Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
YASHWANT VARMA
Sunil Sehrawat – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to rejection of alternative plot application. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents' basis for rejecting application. (Para 3) |
| 3. petitioner's claim of insufficient notice. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. requirement for resubmission of application. (Para 6) |
| 5. order quashing the prior decision and remittal. (Para 7) |
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 al
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 conside....
The main legal point established is that applications for alternative plot allotment made in line with the respondent's advice and within the specified time should not be rejected based on limitation....
Eligibility for alternative plots under land acquisition policies is contingent upon not owning a residential property at the time of acquisition.
The court emphasized that failure to receive notices does not negate the petitioner's right to due process, allowing reconsideration of their application for an alternative plot.
The owner of the land at the time of its acquisition is entitled to apply for an alternate plot under the policy issued by the public notice dated 27.03.1989. Delay in filing the appeal may not be ju....
A petitioner cannot invoke Article 226 based on an application made 54 years after the initial policy deadline due to gross delay and laches.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and granting them an opportunity of hearing in the case of allotment of an alternative plot.
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 ....
The court emphasized the importance of complying with notice requirements and submitting requisite documents in applications for allotment of alternative plots, while also directing expeditious consi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
