The court ruled that failure to comply with documentation requests for land allotment led to valid rejection; the policy aims to rehabilitate those rendered landless by acquisition.

Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Rejection of plea for allotment of an alternate plot - Writ petition filed seeking to quash rejection and direct recommendation for allotment - Failure to provide requisite documents led to rejection - Admissions by Respondent regarding prior communications and opportunities provided to Petitioner to comply with documentation requirements. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 18, 22)

(B) Land acquisition and rehabilitation measures - Policy aims to rehabilitate individuals whose lands have been acquired, helping those rendered landless or homeless. (Paras 12, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petition arises from the rejection of a request for an alternate plot following the acquisition of agricultural land owned by the Petitioner's father. The application was rejected due to non-compliance with document requests despite multiple opportunities provided by the Respondents.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Petitioner did not fulfill the documentation requirements, and the rejection was not unlawful or erroneous.

Issues: The main issues were the adequacy of the documentation provided by the Petitioner and the validity of the rejection order.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that despite several notifications and opportunities given to the Petitioner, the requisite documents were not submitted, and the rejection of the application was found appropriate.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks quashing of rejection order and alternate plot allotment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. arguments regarding document submission and rejection of application. (Para 8 , 9)
3. court reviews rejection order and public notice process. (Para 10 , 11)
4. discussion on rehabilitation principles and 1961 scheme. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. assessment of deficiencies and eligibility criteria for applications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. court's conclusion on legality of rejection order. (Para 20 , 21)
7. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 22 , 23)

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs:

(i) Issue a Writ Order or direction thereby quashing the letter dated 30.10.2017; and

(ii) Pass a Writ of Memorandum thereby directing the Respondents to recommend the name of the Petitioner to DDA for allotment of a alternate plot in terms of the Policy of the Respondents.

2. The brief facts of the instant case are that the father of the Petitioner was an Agriculturist by profession and owned an agricultural land in Village Jogabai, Tehsil, Defence Colony, District South-East, New Delhi. The Respondent issued a notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the land of the father of the Petitioner was acquired.

3. The father of the Petitioner applied for the allotment of alternate plot on 18th January 2007. On 5th July 2016, the Respondent intimated the Petitioner about the deficiencies in his application and requested to produce certain documents to the office of Deputy Secretary of the Respondents.

4. On 16th November 2016, in response of the said letter, the father of the Petitioner submitted certain documents as required by the Respondents. Vide letter dated 2nd January 2017, the Respondents asked for certain other documents namely, Complete Revenue Record (Khatauni); Status of remaining land; Ownership status of property No. 68, Khizrabad, Delhi; Clarification regarding showing ownership of land as the applicant has shown as cultivator in khatauni. Vide letter dated 1st March 2017, father of the Petitioner submitted the following documents:

a. Khatauni

b. Status of remaining land

c. Status of property No. 68, Khizrabad, Delhi

d. Aadhar Card

5. Vide letter dated 27th March 2017, the Respondents again asked for certain documents to which the Petitioner replied by saying that all the necessary documents have already been supplied to the Department.

6. Vide order dated 30th October 2017, the Respondent rejected the case of the Petitioner on the ground that requisite documents have not been submitted by the Petitioner in spite of multiple opportunities.

7. Aggrieved with the rejection of application of his father, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has made the following arguments:

a) The order dated 30th October 2017 has been passed without application of mind by the Respondents. It is submitted that the perusal of the said letter shows that the grounds taken by the Respondents is the non-submission of the documents as mentioned in the said letter whereas the fact remains that the documents sought by the Respondents were duly submitted vide letter dated 16th November 2016 and 1st March 2017 and again informed about vide letter dated 5th April 2017.

b) The Petitioner obtained the copy of file no. 32(35)/03/2007/L&B/Alt. through RTI dated 4th December 2017 and it came to knowledge of the Petitioner that the documents submitted by him on 24th October 2017 were not placed on the file. It is submitted thereafter, the Petitioner tried to contact the Respondents, but neither any information was provided nor any action taken upon the request to the Petitioner till date.

9. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of