- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is running a charitable institution meant for rehabilitation of orphans and destitute women and is also looking after abandoned girls. This is not disputed by the respondents. On 30.5.1991, the petitioner was initially allotted a plot measuring 2791 sq. mtr. at concessional rate and possession has also been given to the petitioner on the basis of Agreement. After the construction commenced, the petitioner realized that there was a narrow belt of land about 1.5 mtr. Width, which was not allotted to the institution. The petitioner, accordingly, informed the respondent No. 2 and sought allotment of the said land. The respondent No. 2 appears to have called for a report from his officer. The matter, however, was not concluded. It is the petitioner's case that in spite of specific request made in the month of August, 1991 and the letter dated 2.1.1992 issued by the Cost Accountant and Economic Planner, the additional land of the plot was not allotted to it, which otherwise cannot be meaningfully used by any other person for any other purpose. It appears that pursuant to some question raised in the Legislative Assembly, the respondents carried out an inspection of the said land and found that the boundary wall had been constructed on the excess land. The petitioner, thereafter, renewed the request for allotment of the said land and as the petitioner apprehended that the boundary wall which has been constructed will be demolished, it has approached this Court. The total excess land admeasures 236.32 sq. mtr.
(2.) The question for our consideration on the facts and circumstances of this case, is as to whether the petitioner's request for allotment of the said land ought to have been considered and if so, at what point of time.
(3.) In our opinion, considering the nature of the land and the facts of the present case, the land should be allotted to the petitioner, which otherwise could not be used for any other purpose. The excess land formed part of the same plot. It cannot be exploited by the respondents or given for any other purpose to any other person. It ordinarily ought to have been part of the original plot allotted to the petitioner. It appears that on account of some mistake that part of the land was not allotted. The petitioner realizing this had immediately applied for the said additional land.;