RAM KUMAR JAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of C. W. Ps. 1705/82, 25, 39, 145, 146, 182, 700 and 770 of 1983 as there are common questions of facts and law. I will, however, take the facts from the case of Raj Kumar Jain, C. W. P. 182 of 83.

(2.) A scheme was formulated for the acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. It was notified on May 2, 1961. As a general policy, the disposal of developed land was to be made by auction and premium was to be determined by the highest bid except in the specified cases where land could be allotted at pre-determined rates, namely, the cost of acquisition and development plus additional charge mentioned in sub-para 7 of the scheme to individuals whose land had been acquired as a result of the notifications, inter alia, dt. Mar, 7, 1957, Sept, 3, 1957, Nov., 13. 1959 and Nov., 10, 1960 or such other subsequent notifications. There are other conditions as to the allotment as mentioned in the scheme. The Delhi Administration issued a public notice on 21st, 22nd and 23rd Nov. 1963 inviting applications by Dec., 10,1963 for allotment of plots from those persons whose land was acquired up to Dec., 15, 1963 for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. In pursuance of the applications received and the policy, the Delhi Administration has allotted plots of lard to various persons whose land had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi.

(3.) The petitioner did not make an application seeking allotment of the developed residential plot in lieu of his land acquired under the scheme of 'Large scale acquisition, development and disposal of the land in Delhi' in response to the public notice in Nov., Dec., 1963. The petitioner made the application for allotment for the first time on Sept. 7, 1979. The Land &. Building Department of the Delhi Adnsinistration ackn wledged the application and stated that his application could not be entertained at that late stage unless the petitioner could show cogent reasons for this inordinate delay. The petitioner gave his reasons in the application dt. Oct.. 12, 1979 explaining the delay in applying for alternative residential plot and prayed for its condonation. A reminder was also sent by the petitioner.