The allottee holds the responsibility of protecting the allocated plot post-possession, and the court will not intervene where the appropriate remedial actions have been taken by the respondent to address encroachments.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Allow the instant writ petition and direct the respondent to allot some other alternative plot or in the alternative

(b) Direct the respondent to get the said plot vacated from the encroachers and hand over vacant peaceful possession of the said plot to the petitioner

(c) Grant damages to the tune of Rs.10,00000/- for causing financial loss, loss of reputation to the petitioner;

(d) Pass any other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case."

2. The facts that have led to the filing of the instant petition reveal that the petitioner was allotted Plot admeasuring 150 sq. yards, bearing No. L-161, Bhorgarh Bawana-II Industrial Complex under the Relocation of Industries Scheme of 1996 vide letter dated 17th September 2010. The possession letter thereto dated 30th January 2014 and the Plot Status Certificate dated 14th February 2014 was also issued to the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that when the allottee went to take over the physical possession of the aforesaid plot, the same was found to be encroached upon, whereafter, the petitioner filed a complaint with the SHO, Police Station Narela, Delhi seeking registration of FIR against the encroachers. Complaints were also made by Ex-Engineer (CD) to the concerned Police Station.

4. The petitioner, thereafter, also made several representations to the respondent for change of the plot allotted to it, however, having received no reply on the said representations and after seeing that no action had been taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid plot was allotted to the petitioner, however, after signing the possession letter the allottee came to know that Plot No. 161-164 were encroached upon by one Khushnuma Parveen since the year 2008. It is submitted that the Plot Status Certificate issued to the petitioner misrepresented that the plot was lying vacant and the respondent concealed the fact that there was encroachment on the plot allotted to it.

6. It is submitted that the petitioner contacted Executive Engineer A.K. Mishra and Rakesh Nain, who informed it that the encroacher had constructed her jhuggi, however, despite knowing the fact the petitioner was not intimated about the same and was allotted the encroached plot. It is submitted that the petitioner was duped and cheated by the respondents who were well aware that the encroachment long existed on the said plot and despite the same, allotted it to the petitioner, falsely claiming it to be vacant. It is submitted that the same is also evident from the complaint dated 3rd November 2011 by Rajesh Malik S.P.M. (CD)-XIII to the SHO, PS Narela, Delhi seeking registration of FIR against encroachment on the L Block of Industrial Area where the said plot is situated. Another letter was written by the Ex-Engineer (CD)-XIII dated 5th January 2015 to the SHO, PS Narela seeking police help for removing the encroachments from Plot No. L-161 to L-164.

7. It is submitted that the petitioner made representations dated 10th July 2015, 8th April 2016, 23rd March 2017 and October 2017 to the respondent, however, no reply was received by him on any of the representations.

8. It is submitted that the encroacher has also falsely implicated the proprietor of the petitioner in an FIR registered under Section 354A/376/34 of the Indian Pe