NEKI RAM SOHAN DASS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had been in occupation of land measuring 60 sq yards, hereinafter referred to as the premises in the locality of Motia Khan, where he had been carrying on the business of metal and scrap since 1.1.1960. Many other persons like the petitioner had also been occupying and carrying on the business in different premises in the said locality of Motia Khan.

(2.) That in the master plan the DDA, respondent herein framed a policy to allot land for the occupants dealing in metal and scrap in the newly developed Loha Mandi, Naraina, known as Naraina Warehousing Scheme. It was on 16.5.68, that a decision was taken to allot a plot of land measuring 250 sq yards in Naraina Industrial Scheme Phase II to the petitioner in lieu of the plot occupied by them in Motia Khan. It was communicated to the petitioner vide lttre Annexure P7 but, later on, on 12.6.68 the said allotment was cancelled with the information that some other plot would be allotted. The petitioner was evicted from the premises in Motia Khan on 15.1.1975, but he was not allotted any alternative plot in lieu of the premises from which he had been evicted. The petitioner mad several representations requesting the respondent to allot alternative plot on payment of the reserved price of Rs. 56 per sq yards, but no action was taken. It was only on 15.3.85 that approval was accorded by the Vice Chairman of the rspondent DDA to allot a plot of land measuring 100 sq yards to the petitioner in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme vide lewtter Annezure P8 in lieu of the premises from where he had been evicted, as back as 15.1.1975 vide letter dated 15.1.85 (annexure P8). Unfortunately, neither any allotment letter in that respect was given to the petitioner, nor he was put in possession of the said plot, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to rspondent No,. I to make effective allotment by indentifying plot No. in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme and its actual possession to the petitioner at the reserved price,

(3.) Depite several opportunities granted, the DDA, respondent herein, did not file counter affidavit to this writ petition, though it has been pending since 1987. Counsel for the respondent stated that he wrote to the DDA several times but he did not receive any comments and as such he could not file any counter,