O R D E R

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“(a) issue a writ or direction in the in the nature of Writ of Declaration, declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as illegal, arbitrary and not in consonance with the order dated 30.9.2008 passed by this Hon'ble Court in WP(C)

No.5756/2001;

(b) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No.2 to act upon the request made by the Respondent No.1 for acquisition of land of the Petitioner keeping in view the directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 30.9.2008 in WP(C)

No.5756/2001;

(c) pass any other or further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The Petitioner alleges that his legal right to enjoy his property comprised in Khasra No. 35/16-1, Village Shahbad Daulatpur has been deprived by the Respondents because the land forming part of Khasra Nos. 35/15 and 34/11 have been acquired vide notification dated 27th October 1999 issued under Section 4 and Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, leaving the khasra number in question being 35/16-1, which has now become landlocked and the Petitioner cannot approach the said land.

3. Aggrieved by the land acquisition, the Petitioner filed a writ petition bearing number W.P. (C) 5756 of 2001, inter-alia, challenging the acquisition proceedings on the ground of discrimination as the land of the persons similarly situated as to that of the Petitioner had been denotified under the policy of denotification of Respondent No.2. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 30th September 2008 disposed of the said writ petition, inter alia, with the following observations:

“Copy of the plan showing location of land in Khasra No.35/15, 34/11 and 35/16-1 has been filed on the basis of which he submits that after acquiring land belonging to the petitioner in Khasra No.35/15 and taking possession thereof, there is no access to his land covered by Khasra No. 35/16-1. From the site plan as perused, this submission of the Ld. Senior Counsel appears to be correct.

In these circumstances, two suggestions are mooted by Mr Ravinder Sethi, Ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, in the alternative.

First suggestion is that the respondents may consider acquiring land comprised in Khasra No.35/16-1 as well. He points out that suggestion in this respect was given as back as on 17.05.2005 when counsel for the respondents had taken time to seek instruction as to whether there was a possibility of acquiring this piece of land. His alternate suggestion is that he should be allowed a passage to access his land in Khasra No.

35/16-1.

Since the challenge to the acquisition is given up, we are of the opinion that the petitioner may make a representation to the DDA giving both the proposals mentioned above in as much we find that the problem faced by the petitioner is genuine and therefore, it can be resolved by accepting either of the aforesaid suggestions. If the respondents do not want to acquire the other land, the petitioner, prima facie, has right to access to his other land which cannot be blocked in the manner done by acquiring other piece of land.

Such a representation shall be moved within a period of two weeks from today and possession thereof shall be taken within two months thereafter by the DDA.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms."

4. After passing of the aforesaid judgment, on 4th December 2008, the Petitioner made representation to the Respondent No.1 requiring the Authority to decide upon the representation and to pass orders in terms of the judgment dated 30th September 2008. Failing to receive a response to his representation, the Petitioner made subsequent representations dated March, 2011 and 7th May 2015. Again, failing to receive a response to his multip