- (1.) BY virtue of this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks allotment of 400 sq. yards of a residential plot in a developed sector of Rohini, Delhi on the cost equivalent to the cost of acquisition of the plot plus development charges. The case of the Petitioner is that the land measuring 44 Bighas and 19 Biswas forming part of Khasra No.21/2, 22/2, 1/2, 11, 20, 2, 9, 12, 16/1, 17/2, 18/2, 7, 5/1, 5/1/2, village Pooth Kalan was acquired vide Notification dated 11.12.1981. The Petitioner had one third share in this land and he was paid a compensation of Rs.2,96,696/ on 24.12.1985.
(2.) IT is averred that at the time of acquisition of land, the persons whose land was acquired were assured that in lieu of the acquisition of the land, they would be entitled to allotment of a plot under the residential scheme known as 'Allotment of Alternative Plot under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961'. It is stated that in terms of this scheme, the Petitioner became entitled for allotment of a 400 sq. yards plot. A letter of recommendation dated 12.10.2012 was addressed by the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the DDA. The Petitioner's grievance is that the Respondent (DDA) is making allotment of alternative plots arbitrarily and for extraneous reasons without following the seniority. Further, the Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hansraj H. Jain v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1993) 3 SCC 634 to contend that he should be allotted the land at the cost of acquisition plus the development charges. The prayers made by the Petitioner are extracted hereunder: "(a)issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to allot a 400 sq. Yards residential plot in a developed sector of Rohini to the petitioner; (b) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondent to charge for alternative plot as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hansraj Case (supra) i.e. taking into consideration only the cost of acquisition plus development charges; and (c) pass any other order or direction this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the present Petition is completely bereft of any specific allegation that any person junior to the Petitioner was allotted a plot in terms of the scheme. The Petitioner has vaguely stated that he came to know that the Respondent is making allotment of the plots arbitrarily. Para 5 of the Petition is extracted hereunder: "5. The petitioner however came to know that the respondent is making allotment of alternative plots arbitrarily and for extraneous reasons without following the seniority. The respondent is allotting best plots selectively to certain recommendees and in respect of others is allotting plots in undeveloped sectors citing its own executive decisions. The petitioner also came to know that the respondent almost always never makes an allotment on its own unless compelled by the orders of this Hon'ble Court." ;