Pardeep Kumar v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi High Court · 21 Jan 2025 · 2025:DHC:362
Manoj Jain
W.P.(C) 739/2025
2025:DHC:362
administrative petition_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the DDA to treat the writ petition as a representation and decide it with a personal hearing and reasoned order within twelve weeks, allowing further legal recourse if aggrieved.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 739/2025 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 21st January, 2025
W.P.(C) 739/2025 & CM APPL. 3652/2025 & CM APPL. 3653/2025
PARDEEP KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Alok Kumar Pandey and Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC for R-1/UOI.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for R- 2/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
JUDGMENT
(oral)

1. Present petition seeks directions to the respondents for mutation of the suit property in their favour and conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, subject to the payment as per the Gadgil Assurance Scheme or, in alternate, to provide an alternative accommodation in terms of the above said Scheme.

2. Learned counsel for respondent DDA, who appears on advance notice, on instructions, submits that they would have no reservation if the present writ petition is directed to be treated as a representation. It is assured that before deciding the representation, the petitioners would be W.P.(C) 739/2025 2 given an opportunity of personal hearing and the concerned competent Authority would dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection to the above said proposal.

4. In view of the above, the petition is disposed of with direction that the respondent Authority i.e. DDA shall consider the present writ petition as a representation and would dispose of the same by way of a speaking and reasoned order within a period of twelve weeks from today. The petitioners would also be given an opportunity of personal hearing.

5. Needless to emphasize, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the outcome of the above said representation, he would be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate action as permissible under the law.

6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE JANUARY 21, 2025