SURESH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE Rule. Ms. Rachna Srivastava, learned counsel waives notice of Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the matter was heard for disposal. In these proceedings, the claim of the petitioners is that their request of allotment of alternative site should be considered and a consequential order that they should be given one such site/plot. The petitioners were owners to the extent of 3/16 share of a land measuring 12 -7 bighas which was acquired by a Notification under the Land Acquisition Act in 1984. The Award in this case was made on 19.9.1986. The petitioners' share of the compensation was assessed at Rs. 3454.43 each which was disbursed subsequently. It is contended that in furtherance of a public notice dated 30.11.1993, the petitioners applied for allotment of an alternative site in view of the respondents' policies on 8.3.1986. It is contended that such applications were to be made on or before 12.11.1996; the petitioners, therefore, allegedly applied within time.

(2.) THE respondents replied to the petitioners sometime in 2000 and contend that their applications were made belatedly. They adverted to an application dated 21.4.1998 and stated that since the petitioners applied long after the designated date and period, their application could not be considered.

(3.) MS . Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the pleadings in counter affidavit. It was contended that according to the Notification, desirous applicants wanting allotment of site were to apply within the time stipulated. The Notification pertained to land acquired upto 31.12.1988. The, petitioners should have applied well before the date stipulated i.e. 12.11.1996. On the contrary, they chose to apply in April 1998. Reliance was placed upon column 12 of the application dated 16.4.1998 to say that the petitioners applied for the first time and had not applied earlier. It was contended that this gave a lie to the petitioners' assertion of having applied within the time on 8.3.1996.