MEHAR CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset it may be recorded that during course of arguments on 12.8.2008 when final arguments were addressed in the above-captioned writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ravi Gupta restricted his submissions to prayer 'a' and 'b' made in the writ petition and gave up relief prayed as per prayer 'c'. Thus, we note only prayer 'a' and prayer 'b' prayed for in the writ petition. The same read as under :-

(2.) Case of the petitioners is that they owned agricultural lands in Village Shahabad Mohmmad Pur, New Delhi which were acquired by the Union Government under Award No.103/72-73 dated 26.3.1973, and there being a policy framed by the respondents under Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 to allot a residential plot to the person whose agricultural land was acquired, pursuant to applications submitted by the petitioners, after verification, vide letters annexed as Annexure-A collectively to the writ petition, the Joint Secretary of the Land and Building Department, Delhi Administration recommended allotment of an alternative plot to the petitioners, but without any reason, withdrew the recommendation vide impugned communication dated 7.10.1988 addressed to the Commissioner (Lands) DDA with copy thereof to the petitioners and 36 other persons.

(3.) In a nutshell, on the factual narrations afore-noted, the case pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioners is that there being a policy framed by the respondents to allot an alternative residential plot to every person whose land is acquired in Delhi for the purposes of planned development of Delhi, the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of an alternative plot; and secondly for the reason that a large track of land in Village Shahbad Mohammad Pur was acquired and to all persons who were affected by the acquisition, save and except 43 persons in respect of whom recommendations for allotment of alternative plots were withdrawn by the impugned communication dated 7.10.1988, alternative plots were allotted resulting in the petitioners being discriminated against.