RAGHU NATH SMGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land belonging to Shri Kanwar Lal, father of the petitioner herein was acquired by the Delhi Administration for the planned development of Delhi in the year 1962. Under the policy of the Delhi Administration which was notified on 2.5.1961, the persons whose land had been acquired for planned development of Delhi were to be considered for the allotment of an alternate plot of land commensurate with the area acquired from such a person. Accordingly, the Delhi Administration allotted plots of land to various persons whose land had been acquired between the period 1962-63. The petitioner's father Shri Kanwar Lal applied for allotment of such a plot. However, Shri Kanwar Lal died in the year 1975 before any allotment of alternative plot could be made to him. The petitioner, therefore, on 3.7.1979 applied to respondent no. 3-Delhi Administration for the allotment of a residential plot of land in South Delhi in lieu of his father's land which was acquired by the Delhi Administration. The petitioner was thereafter asked by respondent no. 3 by way of a communication dated 10.10.1979 to submit the application in the requisite form which the petitioner did vide his letter dated 16.10.1979. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter dt. 23.10.1979 from respondent no. 3 asking for an explanation why the application of the petitioner was delayed beyond the prescribed time specified in the Press Note issued by the Delhi Administration. The petitioner vide his letter dated 20.11.1979 explained the reasons for the delay. Thereafter, respondent no. 3 vide its letter dated 21.12. 1979 required the petitioner to file a list of legal heirs of Shri Kanwar Lal, father of the petitioner which was also furnished by the petitioner by letter dated 18.1.1980. Ultimately, respondent no. 3 vide communication dated 28.1.1980 accepted the representation of the petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh and recommended the case of the petitioner and Shri Amir Singh for allotment of alternate plot ad measuring 250 sq. yds. in South Zone jointly in the name of the petitioner and Shri Amir Singh. The petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh were informed to have direct communication with Delhi Development Authority in regard to the allotment of the said plot. Thereafter, the petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh requested Land and Development Officer of respondent no. 3 that instead of a joint plot of 250 sq. yds, the petitioner and Shri Amir Singh be allotted two plots of 125 sq. yds each. Respondent no. 3-Delhi Administration accepted the recommendation of the petitioner and his brother by communication dated 30.1.1980 and requested the Delhi Development Authority to allot a plot of 125 sq yds each to the petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh in South Zone Residential Scheme. However, thereafter vide communication dated 28.5.1962 respondent no. 3 informed the petitioner that the recommendation for allotment of alternative plot communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.1.1980 stood withdrawn. It was stated in the said letter that the application for allotment of the alternative plot was submitted by the petitioner beyond the prescribed time and the application being time barred, the petitioner was not entitled to alternative plot. The petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh, therefore, filed a writ petition (CWP 146/83) under Article 226 of the Constitution of .India in this Court praying that the letter dated 28.5.1982 bequashed. That writ petition was heard alongwith writ petition being CWP 182 of 1983 (Raj Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Others) and was disposed of by order dated 19.10.1984 and the letter dated 285.1982 of Delhi Administration was quashed. This Court further directed the Delhi Administration to issue Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of mainly on the ground that the decision to withdraw the recommendation was taken in violation of the rules of natural justice. This Court further observed that a plot of land be kept reserved for the petitioner till a fresh decision, is taken by the Delhi Administration. Thereafter, the Delhi Development Authority vide letter dt. .5.2.1985 communicated to the petitioner that as per orders of the High Court plot no. B-6/Extn./21 measuring 100 sq. mts. in Safdarjung has been reserved for him. A Show Cause Notice was also issued by the Delhi Administration on 7.2.1985 to the petitioner calling upon him to explain the delay in making the application within the prescribed time. The petitioner made his represeatation on 6.3.1985. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected and by letter dated 21.6.1985 the petitioner was informed that his reply to the Show Cause Notice has no force and the decision already conveyed to him would stand. It was however communicated to the petitioner that the matter was considered afresh by the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration and a decision was taken that the claim of such persons who did not apply within the stipulated time should be rejected and the recommendation made for an alternative plot in favour of the petitioner was withdrawn. The petitioner prays that this letter dated 21.6 .1985 be quashed and seeks a writ of certiorari by way of this writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the reasons for delay in submitting the applicacion were furnished by the petitioner vide his letter dated 20.11.1979 itself and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the Delhi Administration had recommended the allotment of alternate plot to the petitioner and in fact thereafter the request of the petitioner and his brother Shri Amir Singh to give two separate plots of 125 sq. yds to the petitioner and his brother instead of one plot of 250 sq. yds was also accepted by the Delhi Administration. Learned Counsel submitted that it is now not open to the Delhi Administration to reconsider the question of delay and withdraw the allotment already made. Learned Counsel further submitted that in any event the petitioner's application was not time barred because the father of the petitioner had applied for an alternative plot during his life time and within the prescribed time and the petitioner had only renewed the application in 1979. Learned Counsel submitted that from the impugned letter it is clear that a decision in that regard was taken by the Chief Secretary and not because the explanation given by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory. Learned Counsel referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported as S.B. Kishore v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1991 SC 99 and submitted that even in a case where the application was made 19 years after the prescribed time the Supreme Court directed the respondents to make allotment of alternative plot to the appellant in this case.

(3.) The respondents have neither chosen to file their counter-affidavit nor has any one appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the relief sought for by the petitioner.