PHOOLWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for issue of direction to the respondents to allot an alternative plot. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard relies upon order dated 6th October, 2005, passed in W.P.(C) No. 2036/2002. A perusal of the said order reveals that the petitioner had relied upon proviso to Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and had prayed for re -transfer of the acquired land on the ground that the DDA wanted to sell the said land without any development. The said contention was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED Judge noticed that the petitioner had filed written synopsis running into 7 pages and had made allegations and averments beyond what was pleaded in the writ petition. In the written synopsis the petitioner had claimed that she is entitled to alternative plot as agricultural land had been acquired. No such plea or prayer was made in the writ petition.

(3.) THIS cannot be regarded as a direction issued by the Court to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner's claim for alternative land was rejected in 1981.