DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. J P GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a delay of 2492 days in preferring the instant appeal and therefore, CM No.2036/2012 is preferred seeking condonation of delay. The explanation sought to be given in this application, in fact, touches the merits of the appeal as well. Thus, before we take note of the explanation given by the appellant in the application seeking condonation of delay, it would be necessary to state some material facts.

(2.) The respondent No.1 herein had filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.911/1985 in this Court questioning the validity of letter dated 06.7.1980 vide which allotment of plot of 200 sq. yds. Was cancelled. According to the respondent No.1, some lands purportedly belonging to him were acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as "the LA Act"] for which he was also paid the compensation. As per the scheme for allotment of alternative lands to those whose lands are compulsorily acquired under the provisions of LA Act, the respondent No.1 applied for such an allotment. The scheme provides that the appellant/Government would examine the entitlement of such persons under the Scheme and if a person is found eligible for alternative plot, recommendation shall be made by the Government to Delhi Development Authority for allotting the plot. Insofar as the respondent No.1 is concerned, the appellant after examining his case vide letter dated 15.1.1980, recommended to the DDA to allot him a plot of 250 sq.yds. However thereafter, the size of the plot was reduced to 200 sq. yds. DDA vide letter dated 23.9.1980 informed the respondent No.1 about his entitlement and asked him to deposit the earnest money which was deposited by him and thereafter a plot ad measuring 200 sq. yds. Bearing No.AG-46, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi, was allotted to him. The allotment to this plot was cancelled subsequently vide letter dated 06.7.1980 by the appellant.

(3.) The respondent challenged this cancellation by filing the aforesaid Writ Petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 20.2.2003 in the following manner: