WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 1 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No.1201/2010 Date of Decision: December 20, 2010 SH. PARDEEP KUMAR AND ANR ... Petitioner through Mr.B S Maan with Mr. Jitin Tewathia, Mr. Jai Prakash, Mr. Anil Maan Advocates Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondents through Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Advocate for respondent no.2. Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for DDA CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The land of the petitioner’s father who has since died, which was situated in Village Maidan Garhi was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act in the year 1980. The owners of the land were entitled to a plot of land in lieu of acquisition under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition Disposal and development of Land in Delhi – 1961. In spite of the Scheme, the case of the father of the petitioner was not processed for allotment of a plot which forced him to come to this Court by way of writ petition bearing no. 7219/2005, on which an order dated February 27, 2006 was passed by this Court directing the Land & WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 2 Building Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi to initiate action to process the application which was received way-back in the month of November, 1987. Pursuant to the direction so passed, the Land & Building Department vide letter dated July 13, 2006 wrote to the Commissioner (Land/DDA) recommending the case of the petitioner’s father for allotment of a plot measuring 250 square yards. The DDA instead of taking action on the said recommendation, wrote back to the Land & Building Department to re-verify the case of the petitioner’s father along with 490 other cases. Since the Land & Building Department had already sent its recommendation, it wrote back to the DDA saying that there was no justification for re-verification of each case, unless there was any specific point of doubt which required re-verification. The Land and Building Department thus approved the verification that had already been made in the case of the father of the petitioner. The father of the petitioner in the meanwhile died and consequently, mutation in the name of the petitioner was done by the DDA. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the land belonging to his father was acquired way-back in the year 1980 and in spite of the fact that the DDA recommended his case for allotment of plot on July 13, 2006, the DDA has not allotted the plot to him while the persons who were much below in priority list have already been allotted plots. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DDA submits that in view of the stand of the Land & Building Department of the Government of NCT of Delhi that it has already verified the case of the petitioner, the DDA will include his name in the ‘draw of lots’. WP(C) No.1201/2010 Page 3 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Scheme, the petitioner is entitled to a plot in ‘Dwarka Residential Scheme’ and that all the persons who were junior to him have been allotted plots in ‘Dwarka Residential Scheme’. In view of the above, I direct the DDA to include the name of the petitioner for ‘draw of lots’ with respect to the ‘Dwarka Residential Scheme’ within three months from now. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 20, 2010 PC.