MADAN LAL MITTAL Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 11 November 2002 passed on this writ petition narrates in brief the controversy involved in the case and infact expresses, prima facie, opinion. It would be dipposite to have a look thereon:

(2.) It is clearly discernible from the aforesaid order that the petitioner is aggrieved against that part of the acquisition proceedings and Award vide which his land to the extent of 3 bigha 7 biswas is sought to be acquired. Interestingiy, as would be clear from the Aks Shajra, the entire land surrounding this part of the land is free from acquisition and belongs to the petitioner. It is for this reason, the petitioner challenged the acquisition of this part of land on the ground that neither this part of the land can be put to any use by the respondents nor would it serve any public purpose. Prima facie, this grievance of the petitioner was found to be justified. However, the respondents were given an opportunity to show as to what purpose the respondents wanted to achieve by having this small piece of land in between the petitioner's land. Inspite of various opportunities given to the respondents, this aspect has not been clarified although the respondents, namely, the Land & Building Department as well as the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) have filed affidavits raising other pleas which are controverted by the petitioner by filing rejoinder.

(3.) When the matter came up for hearing today, Mr.Vikram Nandrajog, learned counsel for the petitioner made a fair offer. He stated that the land in question, subject matter of this writ petition, falls in between the greenish yeilow land of the petitioner comprised in Khasra Nos.252, 255, 256 and 258 to 264 in addition to Khasra Nos.253,471/276, 470/276 and 485/277 which is free from acquisition, the petitioner shall have no objection if the respondents take equivalent land, namely, measuring 3 bigha 7 biswas from the petitioner in lieu of this by releasing this land and the respondents could also take land of same measure from the petitioner, adjacent to other land acquired by the respondents. This offer of the petitioner is fair and reasonable and learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the same and in fact they had no answer to this proposal.