A petitioner must demonstrate compliance with document submission requirements for land allotment following acquisition; rejection upheld when deficiencies persist despite multiple opportunities.

JUDGMENT

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 vide an award dated 16th September 1999.

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 father of 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; Status of remaining land; Election I-Card. Vide letter dated 1st March 2017, father of the Petitioner submitting the following documents:

a. Khatauni

b. Status of remaining land

c. Election I-card and Aadhar Card

5. Vide letter dated 2nd January 2017, the Respondents again asked for certain documents to which the Petitioner replied by saying that 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 his application, 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 letters dated 16th November 2016 and 1st March 2017 and he again informed about the submission of the documents vide letter dated 5th April 2017.

b) The Petitioner obtained the copy of file no. 32(35)/01/2007/L&B/Alt. through RTI dated 4th December 2017 and it came to knowledge of the Petitioner that the documents submitted by the Petitioner on 24th October 2017 have not been 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 the Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner has been given multiple opportunities to submit the documents and it is only after that the case of the Petitioner has been rejected. It is further submitted that all the above-said letters were sent to the Petitioner through ordinary post while duly no