RONAK ALI Vs. LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that in the year 1983 he was granted a licence by the respondent no.2 in respect of a certain land at Prothrapur village along with 923 other persons. At the time of making an inquiry regarding handing over of possession it was detected that the alleged land fell within the boundary of the Central Agricultural Research Institution. The same was the fate of 186 persons out of 923 allottees. Subsequently, the High Court on a writ petition filed by another allottee inter alia directed the respondents to frame a scheme for giving an alternative site to the petitioner of that writ petition in lieu of the land allotted to him. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to land in terms of the said scheme; but no such land was actually allotted to him.

(2.) HE, therefore, had filed a writ petition in the year 2010 before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of by giving direction upon the respondent no.2 to allot land in accordance with the scheme in the event the Deputy Commissioner after inquiry found that the writ petitioner did not have any land in his name or in the name of his spouse and he had not been allotted alternative land in lieu of the original allotment. The entire exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 12 weeks and the decision was to be communicated to the petitioner within a period of one week thereafter.

(3.) THIS application has been contested by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not fulfill the condition stipulated in the scheme and was not eligible for allotment of an alternative land. One of the conditions of the said scheme was furnishing of documentary evidence regarding filing of the representation for alternative allotment within 12 years of allotment i.e. the year 1983. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner had not filed his claim within 12 years from the date of his allotment and as such he was not eligible as per the scheme. Moreover, the father of the petitioner has already expired and the petitioner has inherited the share of his father's property. The argument regarding the future inheritance on the death of the father-in-law was also repeated in the affidavit. It was however admitted that the Revenue field staff committed a mistake in allotting the plot of land to the petitioner on a portion of the land which was already allotted to the Central Agricultural Research Institution in 1971. This mistake was detected at the time of handing over of physical possession.