Full Text
W.P.(C) 13890/2009
RANDHIR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Singh Bawa, Adv.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Pathak & Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advs.
14.07.2011
ORDER
1. The petitioner claims alternative plot in lieu of acquired land. Notice of the petition was issued and a counter affidavit is stated to have been filed by the respondent. However, the same is not on record. The copy of the same in the file of the counsel for the petitioner has been perused. The respondent in the counter affidavit has admitted the receipt of the application on 8th November, 1993 from the father of the petitioner for alternative plot. It has however been explained that the various particulars required by the respondent for consideration of the case of the petitioner for alternative plot were directed to be produced from time to time and could be completed only by June, 2010. It has as such been stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner is to be put up before the Allotment Committee as per seniority. W.P.(C) 13890/2009 2011:DHC:3510
2. The counsel for the respondent today states that the case of the petitioner could not be put up before the Allotment Committee till now since the same is to be put up as per seniority.
3. The counsel for the petitioner contends that inspite of the aforesaid averment having been made in the counter affidavit dated 7th December, 2010, the case has not been put up before the Allotment Committee as yet. He further urges that the application has been pending consideration since the year 1993.
4. Though the petitioner in the writ petition has claimed the relief of directing the respondent to recommend the name of the petitioner but the decision whether such recommendation is to be made or not is to be taken in the meeting of the Allotment Committee. As such, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner at this stage is to direct the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner in the meeting to be next held of the Allotment Committee. The respondent to, within two weeks of today, inform to the petitioner, the date when the next meeting of the Allotment Committee is due to be held. Needless to state that if the petitioner remains aggrieved from the decision of the Allotment Committee, he shall have remedies in law. The petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JULY 14, 2011 ‘gsr’