JAI BHAGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants 1, 2 and 3 were each the owner of one bigha land in Khasra No.58/15 and 59/18 of Samaipur village and their lands were acquired on 27/7/1984 for the planned development of Delhi. According to Appellants, Government of India formulated a Scheme dtd. 2/5/1961 under which persons whose lands were acquired for planned development of Delhi, were eligible for allotment of developed plots. The appellants claim to have made applications in October, 1986 for allotment of plots under that scheme. After considering the facts of their cases, the first respondent by letters dtd. 13/10/1986, 17/10/1986 and 16/10/1986 requested the second respondent - Delhi Development Authority ( 'DDA ' for short) to allot plots measuring 250 sq. yds, to the appellants in view of acquisition of their lands. The DDA, by communications dtd. 8/12/1988 allotted to the appellants, plots of the size 120 sq. mtr. in its Rohini Residential Scheme on the ground that plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. were not available.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved, the appellants approached the Delhi High Court in 1989 praying for a direction to DDA to allot plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. and for a direction to modify the letter of allotment dtd. 8/12/1988 to that effect. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petitions by a common order dtd. 29/2/2000. He held that the appellant did not have any vested right to claim plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. and having regard to nonavailability of plots of the size of 250 sq. yds., the allotment of plots measuring 120 sq. m. was not open to challenge. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a brief concurring order dtd. 25/7/2001.

(3.) The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The grievance of the appellants is that the DDA was adopting a discriminatory approach. It is submitted that while plots measuring 120 sqm. were offered to the appellants, others similarly situated were offered plots of the size 144 sqm. and 162 sqm. It is also their grievance that some of the allottees who were earlier offered plots measuring 120 sqm. were subsequently offered larger plots. The Appellants contend that having regard to the recommendation by first respondent, DDA ought to allot them plots measuring 250 sq. yds.