AMOLAK RAJ Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Under the policy for allotment of alternative residential plots to the persons whose lands have been acquired under the scheme of large scale acquisitions (development and disposal) of land in Delhi, the appellant made an application seeking allotment of a plot. The land and building department, Delhi administration, made a recommendation for allotment of plot of land measuring 250 sq. yds. to the appellant in west zone. In the recommendation, it is also stated that:

(3.) Pursuant to the said recommendation, the appellant was allotted a plot of land in rohini residential scheme bearing plot no. 52, pocket 16, sector 20 measuring 250 sq. yds. The appellant was not satisfied by the said allotment. He filed writ petition in the high Court seeking directions to the respondents for allotment of a plot of land measuring 800 sq. yds. , in the west zone or in the alternative to issue appropriate direction for allotment of land measuring 250 sq. yds, as recommended by the sponsoring authority and also to allot an industrial plot of 800 sq. yds. , as per the policy of 1961. The High Court noticed that the policy for allotment has been modified from time to time as approved by the Lt. governor. The allotment of plot was made in favour of the appellant as per the modified policy prevailing then. The High Court dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment following its full bench decision in ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. which was subsequently followed by another division bench in Bagwana v. Union of India, holding that where the alternative plot should be allotted whether zone- wise or locality-wise was a matter of policy; the policy of the respondents to allot plot zone-wise was not arbitrary; the High Court in the aforementioned full bench judgment had clearly stated that a land owner whose land has been acquired has no absolute vested right to claim allotment of a plot as a matter of right.