CHOPRA ENTERPRISES Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CLAIM for entitlement to an alternative industrial plot was laid by the petitioner when he filed WP (C) No. 1781/1998; the claim was predicated on a policy decision taken to rehabilitate all those who were carrying on industrial activity on the land which was acquired requiring DDA to allot an industrial plot to the person affected.

(2.) IT was pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioner was a tenant under Mr. S.S. Gill, Managing Partner of M/s. Alloys Foundry Company and was running a manufacturing unit at Khasra No. 733/1, Village Madipur since 1979 and that on the acquisition of land comprised in Khasra No. 733, the petitioner was displaced and that there being a policy to allot an industrial plot to all those who were affected by the acquisition, the case of the petitioner was considered for allotment of an alternative plot and a decision dated 26.5.1981 was taken to allot a plot to the petitioner but for reasons best known, none was allotted. It was pleaded, that another unit M/s. S.S. Plastics also functioning from the same land was allotted an industrial plot and thus it was urged that the petitioner had been discriminated against. It was pleaded that for unexplainable reasons case of the petitioner was referred to the Land Allotment Committee, while no such reference was made in the case of M/s. S.S. Plastics. Asserting that even under the Nazul Land Rules 1981, the petitioner was entitled to an alternative industrial plot, stating that after making repeated representations till the year 1995 yielding no results, the petitioner was constrained to file the writ petition.

(3.) THE response of DDA was that the writ petition was highly belated inasmuch as vide letter dated 16.4.1992 the rejection letter was served upon the petitioner and that the writ petition being filed in the year 1998 suffered from inordinate delay. The letters written by the petitioner were wished away by pleading that one cannot extend time by merely sending representations. With reference to the claim of parity with M/s. S.S. Plastics it was pleaded that the allotment to M/s. S.S. Plastics was before the Nazul Land Rules 1981 came into force. It was urged that on 9.12.1991 a policy guideline was framed with reference to the Nazul Land Rules, para 8.04 whereof reads as under: