OM PARKASH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allot an alternative plot of land measuring 400 sq. yds in Dwarka on the ground that his father Late Harchand was owner of 25 bigha and 8 biswas of land falling in revenue estate of Village Jasola. A Notification No.4(9)/64-L&H dated 06.04.1964 under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) was issued by the Government of Delhi for acquisition of certain lands for planned development of Delhi. This was followed by another Notification No.F-4(9)/64/L&H dated 07.12.1966 under Section 6 of the Act and an award of compensation was made vide award No.6-D/Supplementary/86-87. The Petitioner's father expired on 25.06.1986 leaving behind the Petitioner and his five sisters as his only legal heirs. The Petitioner also received the compensation for acquisition of the land on 29.01.1987.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that as per the scheme framed and governed by the Respondents, the Petitioner was entitled to alternative allotment of a plot measuring 400 sq. yds in Dwarka. The Petitioner alleges that as per the policy and the scheme framed, he wrote letters dated 27.01.2004 and 18.03.2004 to Respondent No.2 informing it that he had submitted the relevant papers asked for on 27.01.2004. The Petitioner also requested the Respondents to reopen his file bearing No.32(29)14/87/L&B/ALT. The Petitioner states that other persons, namely, Ishar Singh Chauhan, Ajit Singh Chauhan, Bhim Singh Chauhan, Sukhdev Singh Chauhan and Jai Singh Chauhan whose land was similarly acquired have been allotted a residential plot measuring 400 sq. yds. The Petitioner, therefore, says that the act of the Respondents in allotting residential land to the above stated five persons who were lower in seniority than him was arbitrary and was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, as stated above, the Petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to allot a plot measuring 400 sq. yds of residential land in Dwarka to him.

(3.) Before I advert to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents, I may mention that the Petitioner in the writ petition is completely silent on his part if he ever applied for allotment of an alternative plot in accordance with the policy of the Respondents. However, in the rejoinder filed by him when the Petitioner was reminded about his application and the action taken by Land and Building Department of Government of Delhi, he came up with the plea that he had applied for allotment of the alternative plot within one year from the date of award of compensation paid to him. The compensation was paid to the Petitioner on 29.01.1987 and application for allotment was moved by the Petitioner on 28.09.1987.