BHARATIYA JANATA PARTY Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition seeks mandamus to the respondent LandDO to deliver possession of Plot No.1, Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg, New Delhi to the petitioner No.1. Though the writ petition also contains a prayer for a mandamus directing the respondent to decide the representation of the petitioner qua rate but the counsel for the petitioner has not made any submissions thereon and states he does not press for the said relief.

(2.) THE petitioner No.1 was vide letter dated 25th April, 2001 allotted a plot of land ad-measuring 942.92 sq. mtrs. at a provisional premium of '1,36,62,766/- and provisional ground rent of '3,41,570/- per annum to be deposited within 45 days from the issuance of the letter and on the other terms and conditions contained therein. THE petitioner claims to have deposited only a sum of '10,00,000/- with the respondent within 45 days of issuance of the letter (supra) and made a representation to the respondent regarding the rate of premium and ground rent. It was the plea of the petitioner that the adjoining plot had been allotted to the Indian National Congress (INC) at a premium of '14,14,405/- and annual ground rent of '35,360/- only and thus the premium and the ground rent charged from the petitioner was excessive. THE said representation of the petitioner remained under consideration as is borne out from the reply dated 29 th December, 2006 of the respondent to a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005. THE petitioner No.1 however on 8th May, 2007 deposited the balance premium of '1,30,04,366/- and called upon the respondent to deliver possession and upon the said demand remaining unfulfilled, filed the present petition seeking delivery of possession of the plot.

(3.) THOUGH no rejoinder / reply to the counter affidavit / additional affidavit has been filed but the counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had consented to the alternative plot on the terms contained in the letter dated 5th February, 2009 (supra) and one of which terms was that the petitioner "shall accept the alternative allotment of plots No.4and5 when and after the encroachment thereon is removed" and peaceful and vacant possession of the same can be given. It is further contended that the proposal for alternative plot had in fact emanated from the then Urban Development Minister, since it was felt that two major political parties should not have their offices / buildings adjacent to each other. It is also contended that the respondent had while making allotment of another plot on the same road to another political party, got the similar encroachment as existing on plots No.4and5 removed from that plot.