$~18to23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 20^th February, 2025 + W.P.(C) 5697/2018 & CM APPL. 22147/2018 SH. HARI RAM AND ANR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

19 + W.P.(C) 5702/2018 & CM APPL. 22158/2018 MUKESH KUMAR GAHLOT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

20 + W.P.(C) 5703/2018 & CM APPL. 22160/2018 SH. BALDEV SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR. .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

21 + W.P.(C) 5704/2018 & CM APPL. 22162/2018 MANGE RAM & ANR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5697/2018 & other connected matters 1 Advocates.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

22 + W.P.(C) 5735/2018 & CM APPL. 22248/2018 SH. LAL CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Vivek with Mr. Suryansh Jamwal, Mr. Harsh Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR.

.....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

23 + W.P.(C) 6176/2018 VIJAY KUMAR VATS .....Petitioner Through:

versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy and Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. Since all the above said writ petitions raise same issue, these have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The issue involved is short and precise.

3. All the petitioners, barring petitioner Vijay Kumar Vats had land in Village Kakrola, Delhi. Petitioner Vijay Kumar Vats had land in Village Mehrauli, New Delhi.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5697/2018 & other connected matters 2

4. Their such land was acquired for “planned development” of Delhi.

5. The possession of land was taken from them and they were also paid compensation.

6. According to petitioners, there is a scheme known as “Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land”. It was formulated by the Government of India in the year 1961 and as per the above said scheme and policy, any such petitioner, whose land is acquired for the development of Delhi is, besides, compensation, entitled to an alternative plot.

7. As per petitioners, as per the existing policy and procedure, the plots are allotted zone-wise and, therefore, plots are allotted in Dwarka (for recommendees of South Delhi, East Delhi and Dwarka), Rohini (for recommendees of Rohini, North Delhi and West Delhi) and Narela (for recommendees of Narela).

8. Such policy had been consistently followed and shifting of zones was not permitted. They contend that such policy has acquired status of law as rights of the citizens have become associated with the same. Thus, the petitioners had developed a legitimate expectation that the plots would be allotted zone-wise as per the zone mentioned in their recommendation letters. It was also contended that the above allotment was a rehabilitation measure for the persons living in Village abadi so as to give them a chance to upgrade their living standard. Allotment of plots in nearby locality (within the same zone) would have made sense as the allottee would be able to retain connection with their roots and maintain relation with family and friends who were still living in the Village abadi.

9. The petitioners completed the requisite formalities and eventually Signature Not Verified Digitally Sig