Om Prakash v. Delhi Development Authority

1. The agricultural land of the petitioner having been acquired for planned development of Delhi, he applied for an alternative plot under the Scheme framed on 02.05.1961 by the Government of India for large scale acquisition development and disposal of land in Delhi. A recommendation was made by Government of NCT of Delhi to DDA for allotment of a plot measuring 80 square yards to the 2013:DHC:2021 petitioner. However, instead of allotting a plot measuring 80 square yards, DDA allotted a plot measuring 45 square metre to the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation to DDA submitting therein that the size of the plot allotted to him was not in consonance with the recommendation made by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Vide letter dated 04.02.2011, Delhi Development Authority cancelled the allotment of plot measuring 45 square metre made to the petitioner and informed him that he shall be considered for allotment of another plot after a period of one year.

2. Since no allotment of a bigger plot was made to the petitioner even on expiry of one year from the date of the aforesaid letter, W.P.(C) No. 3206/2012 was filed by the petitioner seeking allotment of a bigger plot. The aforesaid writ petition came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.05.2012. The following was the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition:- “The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent/DDA to make allotment of alternate plot in view of the recommendation made by the respondent/DDA vide letters of 15.04.2005 and 14.02.2011. In this regard, the petitioner had written a letter of 29.03.2012 to the respondent/DDA, which according to the petitioner’s counsel has not been considered by the respondent/DDA. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of in limine with directions to the respondent/DDA to effectively respond to the petitioner’s letter of 29.03.2012 within a period of three months and to communicate its fate within two weeks thereafter. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.”

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite order of the Court dated 25.05.2012, the respondent DDA has not effectively responded to his letter dated 29.03.2012. In my view, if the respondent DDA has not complied with the order passed by this Court on 25.05.2012 by not effectively responding to the petitioner’s letter dated 29.05.2012, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file a petition against the respondent-DDA, alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 25.05.2012 and a fresh writ petition is not an appropriate remedy for enforcement of the order passed in an earlier writ petition. The petitioner, in my view, would not have a fresh cause of action to file a fresh writ petition unless DDA passed some order or issues some communication in compliance of the order dated 25.05.2012 and the petitioner is aggrieved from such an order of the communication.

4. The petition is misconceived and is hereby dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master. V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 23, 2013