Full Judgment Text
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of order : 15 November 2022
+ W.P.(C) 5838/2021 & CM APPL. 44137/2021
DHARAMVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sahil Jain, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) & ANR....Respondents
Through: Ms. Rachita Garg, Ms. Aayesh Khan
and Ms. Sachi Chopra, Advocates for
R-1
Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
O R D E R
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiori for Quashing/Setting
aside the order dated 02.22.2021 passed by the Respondent no.
1, and/or
(b) Direct the Respondent no. 1 to decide the Application filed
herein as Annexure P-2 in a fair, transparent and time bound
manner by giving effective and proper opportunity of hearing
to the Petitioner, and/or
(c) Direct the Respondent no. 2 to provide the alternative plot
to the in lieu of the acquired land of the Petitioner as per the
rules:
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 1 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
(d) Issue any other further order/orders or direction/directions
as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and appropriate on the
facts and the circumstances of this case.”
2. The land comprised in Khasra No. 7//6 (2-10), 15 (3-7), 8//10 (4-16),
11 (4-11), 12 (4-16) and 26 (0-5) in Village Shahpur Garhi, Narela, Delhi,
admeasuring 20 Bighas 5 Biswas, was notified under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, and was acquired. The father of the petitioner
th
(hereinafter “predecessor-in-interest/applicant”) had 1/18 share in the
aforesaid land, measuring 1 Bigha 2.5 Biswas.
th
3. Award No. 30/79-80 dated 29 November 1979 was passed and the
predecessor-in-interest, thereafter, applied for allotment of alternative plot
nd
under the Scheme dated 2 May 1961 of Large Scale Acquisition,
Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi (hereinafter “Scheme of
1961”). The said application of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest came
nd
to be rejected vide order dated 2 November 2021 on the ground of non-
submission of documents and on the ground that the petitioner is living in
village deh abadi.
4. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner has approached this
Court seeking the aforesaid prayers.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that
the application for allotment of alternative plot moved by the predecessor-
in-interest remained pending for 30 years and ultimately the impugned order
was passed rejecting the said application. It is submitted that the respondent
no. 2 asked for certain documents at the time of filing of the application
which were duly submitted by the petitioner and his father, yet the demand
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 2 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
was made by the respondent for submission of the documents and the
application was kept pending for the same reason.
6. It is further submitted that the case of the applicant was recommended
rd
by the respondent no. 2 to the Land Acquisition Collector on 3 January
1992 and several reminders were also subsequently sent regarding the
acquisition of the land of the applicant.
th
7. On 26 June 1998, the respondent no. 2 directed the applicant to
submit certain information which was also submitted by the petitioner. On
th
13 September 2000, a second notice was received by the applicant and
again the documents were submitted. Thereafter, after the applicant expired,
the petitioner attempted to have the case file transferred in his name and also
th
furnished all requisite documents. It is also submitted that Notices dated 24
th th th
September 2013 and 11 June 2014 and letters dated 28 October 2015, 11
th th st
January 2016, 7 March 2016, 13 January 2017 and 31 October 2018
were also received and duly complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner
th
on 27 November 2018 made a representation stating that he has submitted
all requisite documents to the respondent no. 1 with the due receiving and a
th
representation dated 6 November 2019 was also made by the petitioner.
8. It is submitted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
th
9 September 2021 in the instant writ petition directed the petitioner to
st
produce documents demanded by the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 31
October 2018, and the petitioner in compliance of the order made a
th
representation on 13 September 2021 asking the respondent no. 1 to
intimate him about the documents required.
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 3 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
9. It is submitted that instead of communicating the documents required,
the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner and his
predecessor-in-interest in an arbitrary, hasty and capricious manner based
on the false report of the Tehsildar and against the mandate of the Scheme
of 1961. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set
aside.
10. Per Contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
vehemently opposed the instant petition and the contentions made therein
and submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed while
rejecting the application for allotment of alternative plot filed by the original
applicant and thereafter followed up with by the petitioner.
11. It is submitted that the framework and intent of the Scheme as well as
the requirements therein are clear and unambiguous yet the petitioner failed
to comply with the same. It is also submitted that several notices were sent
to the petitioner and the applicant requesting them to submit the requisite
documents, however, the necessary documents were not supplied which
were for essential for adjudication of the application of the petitioner.
Moreover, as per the report of the Tehsildar, the petitioner was residing
within the village deh abadi, and hence, he was not entitled for any
alternative accommodation.
12. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed considering
all relevant circumstances after providing ample opportunity to the
petitioner to furnish the documents required for adjudication of the
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 4 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
application for allotment of alternative plot. Therefore, the instant petition is
liable to be dismissed for being devoid of merit.
13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
14. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Courts have the
power to adjudicate upon an impugned order along with the power to
entertain writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo
warranto and certiorari. While adjudicating upon an impugned order, the
scope of writ jurisdiction is narrowed to examining the contents of the order
which is before the Court. Any consideration beyond assessment of the
impugned order, including investigation into evidence and question of facts
would amount to exceeding the jurisdiction. While examining the challenge
to an impugned order, the Court has to limit itself to the consideration
whether there is any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or error apparent on
record. The law, as has been interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is
clear that a High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction shall not appreciate
evidence and must not interfere in the order impugned unless there is a gross
illegality or error apparent on the face of record. Hence, this Court will also
limit itself to the question of law and the contents of impugned order.
15. This Court has perused the impugned order bearing No.
nd
F.33(35)/9/1989/L&B/ALT/2627 dated 2 November 2021 and finds it
apposite to look at the contents of the same for proper adjudication of the
matter. The relevant portion of the impugned Order is reproduced
hereunder:-
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 5 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
“Whereas, an application has been received from Sh.
DHARAMVIR SINGH S/O KHEM CHAND, Ro H.No.29.
Shahpur Garhi, Narela, Delhi-40 on 18.08.87 for allotment of
alternate plot as per Government policy in lieu of acquisition of
land of village SHAHPUR GARHI vide Award No.30/79-80.
Whereas, Committee observed that notice dated 13.10.2017 was
issued to the applicant to submit the requisite documents.
Further, an opportunity of personal hearing was also provided
to the applicant on 24.02.2018. Also two Public Notices dated
13.05.2018 and 23.08.2018 were also published in two dailies
i.e. Hindi and English to submit the requisite documents within
the period of one month.
Whereas, Committee also observed that the concerned
Tehsildar has also inquired into the matter and submitted his
report stating therein that claimant is residing in village Deh
Abadi.
Whereas, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgement in Civil
Appeal No. 8289/2010, 8290/2010 of Delhi Development
Authority V/s Jai Singh Kanwar has held that "the object of the
scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away
in entirety and he is left without any house or plot, he should be
allotted a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a
person who does not own a house/residential plot/flat will be
entitled to apply."
Whereas, The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WPC no.
12306/15 titled as Surinder Singh Mann Vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi decided on 25.08.2017 that "The Policy of the
Government as is evident from the scheme was to provide
residential plots to farmers whose land has been acquired: it
was a rehabilitative measure: meaning thereby that it was to
rehabilitate those farmers whose land has been acquired as
they has become homeless or landless. In the instant case, the
land of the petitioner has been acquired: yet before his
allotment could be processed, the wife of the petitioner has
acquired a property in her own name meaning thereby that
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 6 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
clause 3 (highlighted supra) created a hurdle in the case of the
petitioner and since his wife already owned a plot in her name
on the date when the allotment was to be issued. the petitioner
was not entitled to an alternate plot. It is also not the case of the
petitioner that his wife was not dependent on him".
In view of the position mentioned above, the District Level
Recommendation Committee has decided not to recommend the
case of Sh. DHARAMVIR SINGH S/O KHEM CHAND R/o
H.No.29, Shahpur Garhi. Narela, Delhi-40 due to non-
compliance of above mentioned notices. public notice and non-
submission of requisite documents and claimant is residing in
village Deh Abadi.”
16. In the instant matter, the relevant conditions, which became the
ground for rejection of petitioner’s application, were that, first , he holds
land in village deh abadi area and was not landless and, secondly , that
despite several notices being served to him and being published in the two
dailies, he did not provide the requisite documents for consideration of his
application.
17. The condition of holding a plot/residential accommodation being a
bar for consideration of application of allotment of alternative plot is bar
which finds mention in the first as well as the subsequently modified
version of the Scheme of 1961. This bar is also applicable in cases where
the entire land of the applicant has not been acquired or where certain
portion of the applicant’s land remains in Lal Dora.
18. The Scheme for Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of
nd
Land in Delhi came into force on 2 May 1961 and has been modified from
time to time and not only provided for measures for controlling value in
urban areas but also largely regulated the conditions stipulated for
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 7 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
acquisition, development and disposal of land. The objective of the Scheme
of 1961 suggests as under:
“The scheme of providing developed residential plots to
farmers whose lands are acquired for planned development of
Delhi is a rehabilitation measure”
19. This objective has also been reiterated by this Court as well as the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. A coordinate bench of this Court
in Jai Singh Kanwar vs. Union of India , 2008 SCC OnLine Del 492 , made
the following observations:-
“ 7.2 Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full Bench in Shiv
Devi Virlley explained the rationale for the policy was to see
that the population of Delhi is properly housed and has the
means for acquiring residential houses and further that if a
person has bought a residential plot privately and the State
chooses to acquire that land at a very meagre price, then surely
it is the duty of the State to give an alternative plot at a
moderate price to those persons who have been deprived of
possible residential houses, which they could have constructed
on the land they have acquired”
20. Further, in Surender Singh Mann vs. Government of NCT of Delhi ,
th
W.P.(C) 12306/2015 , decided on 25 August 2017, a Coordinate Bench of
this Court observed as under:-
“7 At this stage, it would also be useful to extract the eligibility
criteria of the Government which had been approved by the
Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 1961 dealing with
allotment of alternate plots. The object of the scheme reads as
under:-
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 8 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
“The scheme of providing developed residential plots
to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned
development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure”
8 The object thus clearly being to provide developed residential
plots to farmers whose land had been acquired for the planned
development of Delhi; this being a rehabilitative measure.
XXX
12 …. The Policy of the Government as is evident from the
scheme was to provide residential plots to farmers whose land
had been acquired; it was a rehabilitative measure; meaning
thereby that it was to rehabilitate those farmers whose land had
been acquired as they had become homeless or landless.”
21. In State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan , (2011) 7 SCC 639,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated on the general principle and
provisions for rehabilitation and observed as under:-
“Land acquisition and rehabilitation : Article 21
26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as
far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on
business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire,
and are willing to purchase and comply with any requirement of
the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on the
terms settled with due regard to the price at which the land has
been acquired from them. However, the State Government
cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the
oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the
desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land
considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation.
Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been
rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood
as a consequence of land acquisition. The authorities must
explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment,
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 9 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
housing, investment opportunities, and identification of
alternative lands.
“10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete
apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected
by the development process and a cynical unconcern for
the enforcement ofthe laws lead to a situation where the
rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the
Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised
citizens.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. case [Mahanadi
Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352] , SCC p.
273, para 10)
For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically
connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a
market economy can be traumatic. (Vide State of U.P. v. Pista
Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251 : AIR 1986 SC 2025] , Narpat Singh v.
Jaipur Development Authority [(2002) 4 SCC 666 : AIR 2002
SC 2036] , Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahaboob [(2009) 14
SCC 54 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 297] , Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd.
v. Mathias Oram [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram,
(2010) 11 SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT (2010) 7 SC
352] and Brij Mohan v. HUDA [(2011) 2 SCC 29 : (2011) 1
SCC (Civ) 336] .) The fundamental right of the farmer to
cultivation is a part of right to livelihood. “Agricultural land is
the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear.
Assured possession is a lasting source for peace and
prosperity.” India being a predominantly agricultural society,
there is a “strong linkage between the land and the person's
status in [the] social system”.
22. Hence, it is evident that the Scheme of 1961 was introduced as a
means to provide for those whose land is acquired for the purposes of
development and to ensure that such persons are not rendered homeless or
landless in the event of such acquisition.
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 10 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
23. The process for allotment of alternative plot is outlined under the
Scheme of 1961. It provides for eligibility criteria as well as conditions and
procedures one needs to follow while applying for allotment of alternative
plot. The Scheme provides for conditions under paragraph 10, which were
updated and modified with time and as per requirements. These conditions
acted as eligibility criteria for the land owners whose lands were acquired
and who became entitled to be considered for allotment of alternate plot,
subject to the conditions laid.
24. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the Scheme are
reproduced hereunder:-
“10. The following conditions shall govern the allotment of land
whether by auction or otherwise to individuals (including those
whose land has been acquired):
a) No plot should be allotted to any person, who or whose
wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations including
unmarried children owns a house or residential plot of land in
Delhi, New Delhi or Cantonment. The question of making an
exception in the case of persons living in a congested locality or
whose family has out-grown should be considered after some
experience has been gained of the working of the scheme.
b) The allotee of a plot should be required to construct the
house in accordance with the sanctioned plans within two years
of the date of allotment, failing which the land would be liable
to be resumed.
c) The allottee of a plot shall not sell or transfer his rights in the
plot or part thereof for a period of 10 years from the date of
allotment except with the previous approval of the Chief
Commissioner which will be given only in exceptional
circumstances. Thereafter the permission to sell will be given to
the Chief Commissioner. In both the cases, 50% of the unearned
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 11 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
increase in the value of the plot will be paid to the Government
before the transfer is permitted…..”
25. The Division Bench of this Court in Government of NCT of Delhi vs.
Veerwati, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1444 , and its connected LPAs, held that
there are four requisite conditions for consideration while filing and
adjudicating the application for allotment of alternative plot. The relevant
portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“3. In the year 1961 the Government formulated the scheme for
allotment of alternate plots to those land owners whose land is
acquired for planned development of Delhi and the land so
acquired is placed at the disposal of the DDA. The allotment of
alternate plot under this policy was subject to his satisfying,
beside others, following conditions:—
a) The application must have been filed within a period of one
year from the date of receipt of the compensation.
b) He should be recorded owner of the acquired land prior to
the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the
Act.
c) He must have received the compensation for the said land as
a rightful owner and the possession of the acquired land has
been taken by the Government.
d) Neither he nor his spouse nor any of his dependent children
own any residential property in Delhi.”
26. The conditions stipulated in this matter have stemmed from the
Scheme of 1961 and its subsequent amendments and hence, have to be
given foremost importance while making an application for allotment of
alternative plot and while its consideration by the concerned authority.
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 12 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
27. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-
interest was considered by the concerned authority and to evaluate the
eligibility of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot the necessary
actions were carried out. Accordingly, the Tehsildar, who was the most
competent authority to investigate into the matter, found that the petitioner
was residing in village deh abadi . Therefore, evidently, the petitioner was
not landless after the land of his predecessor-in-interest was acquired.
28. An examination of the objective of the Scheme read with the
observations made in the abovementioned judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court, definitively and unambiguously
indicate that the Scheme of 1961 is targeted to those individuals, villagers,
farmers etc. who may be rendered homeless or landless upon their land
being acquired by the Government, or any Authority under it, for the
purposes of development. The very structure of the Scheme suggests that it
is a welfare and rehabilitative measure for those affected by the actions
taken in the process of development of the State of NCT of Delhi. Being
considered for compensation, whether monetary or in the form of alternate
plot, is an entitlement which is available to individuals who fulfil the criteria
provided for under the Scheme. Those who lose their homes or their
agricultural lands, that are the only source of their livelihood, are the
beneficiaries of schemes like these and rightly so need to be facilitated as
soon as possible. Such individuals, owners, villagers, farmers and their
families cannot and should not be left remediless after their land is acquired.
However, it should also be borne in mind that in garb of such welfare
schemes, those who have alternative and effective means of sustaining a life
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 13 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
do not take unfair advantage of the schemes and welfare provisions of the
Government and its Authorities. Keeping in mind the objective of the
Scheme, it is found that enforcing an eligibility criterion for consideration of
application of allotment of alternate land is not unreasonable or unfair and is
in fact required for ensuring that the active and effective measures reach
those who are in need.
29. Since, the very purpose of the scheme for allotment of alternative plot
is to provide for those who do not have any land left, residential or
agricultural, subsequent to their land being acquired, and even the
conditions laid under the Scheme provide for the ineligibility on account of
ownership of a land, it is found that the case of the petitioner does not fulfil
the eligibility criteria and hence, he was rightly found not entitled to the
alternative accommodation under the Scheme.
30. A perusal of the impugned order also shows that the second ground
taken while rejecting the application of the petitioner is that certain requisite
documents were not submitted by the petitioner or his predecessor-in-
interest despite several reminders and notices. The Scrutiny Committee, had
issued and served a notice to the petitioner to provide an opportunity of
th
personal hearing in the matter on 24 February 2018. However, the
petitioner failed to appear on the said date. It is also evident that two Public
th rd
Notices dated 13 May 2018 and 23 August 2018 were also published in
two dailies in Hindi and English to submit the requisite documents within
the period of one month. However, as per the record, the documents were
not submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, since the petitioner did not
submit the requisite documents despite two notices and a public notice, the
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 14 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
District Level Recommendation Committee decided not to recommend his
case due to non-compliance of above mentioned notices, public notice and
non-submission of requisite documents.
31. The petitioner has not been able to prove his case for being
considered for the allotment of alternate land because of the deficiencies and
inaction on his part. The petitioner was granted opportunity at several
occasions for submissions of requisite documents and personal hearing for
his case being considered under the Scheme through personal notices as
well as through public notice. However, the petitioner failed in appearing
before the authorities and submitting the requisite documents.
32. The petitioner was granted opportunity for submission of requisite
documents for his case to be considered under the Scheme by means of a
public notice as well. Public Notice is one important means of notification
to the citizens at large or to a section of stakeholders regarding a proceeding
ongoing before an authority. The ordinary business practice is to publish the
public notice in two different languages in widely-circulated newspapers,
and containing all necessary information. The said notice must be
archivable, accessible and verifiable. Accordingly, in the instant case, the
public notice made shall be considered to be deemed notice to the petitioner.
Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, the earlier notices are deemed
not to be served, the public notice issued in newspapers in two languages –
i.e. English and Hindi, shall be deemed to be a valid service, and
accordingly the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of being unserved.
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 15 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18
NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/004911
33. Keeping in view the observations and discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs and the facts and circumstances, it is found that there is no error
apparent on the face of record or any gross illegality in the impugned order
nd
dated 2 November 2021 bearing No. F.33(35)/9/1989/L&B/ALT/2627
passed by the concerned authority while deciding the application for
allotment of alternative plot. The petitioner was not rendered landless after
the land of the father of the petitioner was acquired and moreover, the
petitioner despite several notices failed to furnish the necessary documents
required for consideration of his application.
34. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition
since the petitioner cannot claim a benefit that does not accrue to him.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any,
also stand dismissed.
35. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 15, 2022
gs/ms
W.P.(C) 5838/2021 Page 16 of 16
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:17.11.2022
17:51:18