TRILOK CHAND TYAGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant is aggrieved by dismissal of his CW No. 2277 of 1983 by the learned Single Judge on 16.11.1984. The Appellant had challenged the order of rejection of his two applications for allotment of an alternative plot under the Scheme of `Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi'.

(2.) The facts as noticed in the impugned order are that on acquisition of the Appellant's property, an application was made by him under the Scheme on or about 09.08.1979, which was dealt with by the Delhi Administration in the Land and Building Department. The said Department through its letter dated 07.09.1979 called upon the Land Acquisition Collector to verify the particulars of the land acquired and to furnish the required information to enable the Land and Building Department to take further action. Through letter dated 15.04.1982, the Collector, Land Acquisition called for a copy of the original application of the Appellant so that the particulars contained therein could be verified. Before any decision was taken on this application the Appellant in the meanwhile had on or about 22.05.1982 filed another application. Column 12 of the second application was answered in negative by the Appellant by which he was required to furnish information that whether any application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted earlier in respect of the specified land. By the time first application came up for consideration the second application also came to be scrutinised in the Land and Building Department along with the supporting affidavit filed therewith. At that stage it transpired that the Appellant earlier had also applied which application was being dealt with in file No.F.30(3)8/79/L&B/ALT. Noticing that two applications had been filed and in the second application column 12 had been answered in negative a proposal was mooted for taking action against the Appellant to prosecute him.

(3.) On 19.07.1982, a notice was issued to the Appellant who in his reply filed on 06.08.1982 rendered his explanation. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, instead of prosecuting the appellant, it was decided by the respondents to reject the two applications of the Appellant for allotment of alternative plot. The decision was communicated through letter dated 23.08.1982. The Appellant filed a representation, which was also rejected and the rejection was communicated through letter dated 05.11.1982. Both the decisions were challenged by the appellant in writ petition on numerous grounds. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through the impugned orders. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.