Rekha Palli, J. - (1.)Vide the present petition, the petitioner impugns the decision taken by the respondent in its meeting held on 08.04.2016, whereby the petitioner's application for allotment of an alternate plot had been rejected.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's application had been rejected only on the ground of delay by holding that while the petitioner had received the compensation for the acquired land on 28.09.2004, he had submitted the application for allotment of an alternate plot only on 28.09.2005, which according to the respondent was beyond the prescribed time limit of one year. He further submits that being aggrieved by the said rejection, the petitioner made a representation dated 08.03.2018 to the respondent for reconsideration of his application, which has also remained unactioned till date.
(3.)Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not only calculated the limitation in an erroneous manner but have also ignored another vital fact, that the petitioner had received compensation in respect of his other piece of land acquired by the Award no. 9/DC(NW)/2004-05 only on 211.2004 and, thus, was entitled to submit an application till 24.11.2005. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner's application for allotment of an alternate plot submitted on 28.09.2005 could by no stretch of imagination be treated as time-barred.