TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 575X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - Dated:- 9-4-2012 - G.S. Singhvi Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ. JUDGMENT G.S. SINGHVI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed and the direction given by him for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner, namely, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur (husband of respondent No.1) for allotment of 1000 sq. yards land was upheld. 3. By notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, by the Act by ), the Government of India proposed the acquisition of 2275 Bigha and 18 Biswa l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected to say that the Kh. No. 70/2 mentioned in your application belongs to Gram Sabha as per report of land Acquisition Collector Delhi. As such, you are not found eligible for alternative plot in lieu of acquired land, in accordance with the policy as Kh. No. 70/2 was not owned by you, neither any compensation has been received against this Kh. Number by you. Accordingly your application is rejected.by 7. After about 2 months, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur made representation dated 12.10.1989 and reiterated his demand for allotment of plot by asserting that the reason assigned by the Competent Authority was untenable. He claimed that the benefit of the policy framed by the Government of India cannot be denied to him because his entitlement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been stated in para 1 [xiv] that in so far as the land of the petitioner concerned the sale was admitted by the seller out of Khasra No. 70/2. The aforesaid facts thus clearly show that the land of the petitioner was acquired. Further petitioner has got the compensation in respect of land In question. Thus the impugned orders dated 28-8-1989 read with 10-3-1993 reiterating the same cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The petitioner is thus eligible for allotment of alternate plot. The case of the petitioner has to be considered for the said allotment subject to fulfillment of the normal formalities and other conditions prevalent at the relevant time. 5. It directed that the petitioner shall appear before Deputy Secretary, [Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e any error in the order of the learned Single Judge.by 10. We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Rishikesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. In our view, the impugned order as also the one passed by the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside because, i) While granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
