Full Text
JUDGMENT
SATBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Represented by: Ms.Shalini Gandharva, Advocate.
Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate.
Mr.Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Ms.Kanika Singh and Ms.Rachna Srivastava, Advocates for Respondents
No. 2 and 3.
C.M.No.6840/2014 (for restoration)
1. Pursuant to order dated 23.05.2014, learned counsel named above appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. Vide the instant application, the applicant/petitioner seeks recalling of the order dated 22.04.2014, whereby the petition was dismissed in default.
3. Keeping in view the averments made in the instant application and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner, the instant 2014:DHC:7038 application is allowed.
4. Accordingly, the petition is restored to its original number.
5. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 7372/2013
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions thereby directing the respondent No.3 to re-open the File No.31(2)/49/87/ L&B/alt/414 for allotment of the alternative plot and to recall its order cancelling the application of the petitioner seeking allotment of alternative plot.
2. As averred, land of the petitioner was acquired on 27.01.1984, award was passed on 19.09.1986 and the possession of the land was transferred to the Government Department on 01.10.1986 and 17.03.1987. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application for allotment of alternative plot on 18.07.1988.
3. The respondent No.3 sent a communication dated 08.04.2013, whereby directed the petitioner to produce the revenue record/khatauni of Village Palam within 30 days of receipt of the said communication. The petitioner received the same on 16.04.2013 and accordingly, submitted the relevant document on 07.05.2013, i.e., before expiry of 30 days, but the respondent No.3 closed the application of the petitioner in the meeting of the Committee held on 03.05.2013 itself.
4. Moreover, as per the communication dated 08.04.2013 sent by the respondent No.3, the petitioner was required to submit the relevant documents within 30 days of receipt thereof, however, respondent No.3 ought to have waited upto 15.05.2013, as the petitioner received the communication on 16.04.2013, but at least it should have waited upto 7th /8th May, 2013, but respondent No.3 considered the application of the petitioner before expiry of the prescribed time and closed the case on 03.05.2013 itself.
5. In view of the above noted facts, the aforesaid decision dated 03.05.2013 is hereby set aside and the respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner as and when the Committee commence for the said purpose.
6. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) DECEMBER 15, 2014 sb