On September 5, 2024, the Delhi Tall Court conveyed its decision in W.P. (C) 10989/2017, rejecting a appeal recorded by Shri Rashtra Kumar. The applicant looked for an elective plot in Dwarka from the Delhi Advancement Specialist (DDA), taking after the procurement of his predecessor's arrive in 1965. In spite of suggestions in favor of the applicant, the court found no enforceable right to the designation of an elective plot and rejected the request.
Case Background
Shri Rashtra Kumar, the applicant, conjured the Delhi Tall Court's ward beneath Article 226 of the Indian Structure, looking for assignment of a 400 square yard plot. His claim was based on a proposal letter dated October 3, 2017, issued by the Arrive and Building Office. The petitioner's predecessor's arrive in Town Nangli Jalib, Unused Delhi, had been obtained by the government in 1965, making the applicant qualified for an elective plot.
The petitioner's contention centered on the DDA's disappointment to designate a plot in Division 26, Dwarka, in spite of suggestions. He contended that the DDA had created Pockets 4 and 6 in Dwarka particularly for elective assignments, and he was entitled to get his plot in that zone.
Arguments by the Respondent
The DDA, represented by its standing counsel, argued that Dwarka was fully developed and no alternative plots were available in the area.
The petitioner had already been granted statutory compensation for the land he had purchased under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the DDA explained, thus there was no further legal need to grant his request for a particular piece.
Legal Submissions
The petitioner’s counsel relied on Rule 6 of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. The rule states that individuals whose land was acquired after January 1, 1961, are eligible for allotment of Nazul land at predetermined rates. The petitioner argued that the DDA was bound by this rule to provide an alternative plot, particularly in Dwarka.
Court's Analysis and Findings
Justice Dharmesh Sharma, after reviewing the submissions from both sides, referred to key judicial precedents, including Ramanand v. Union of India, where it was held that a person whose land has been acquired does not have a vested right to an alternative plot. The court also cited Amolak Raj v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court ruled that recommendations for land allotment do not create a legal obligation on the government to allot a particular plot.
The court held that the petitioner's reliance on the recommendation letter was misplaced, noting: "A mere recommendation by the Delhi Administration for allotment to any person does not carry any legal commitment for allotment of the alternate plot." The court further ruled that "the petitioner is not entitled to alternate plot of land for residential purposes" despite the eligibility for allotment.
Conclusion
In its judgment, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the petitioner had no vested legal right to demand an alternative plot in a specific location such as Dwarka. While the petitioner was eligible for allotment, the decision ultimately rested with the DDA, subject to plot availability.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Delhi High Court DDA alternative plot land acquisition Nazul Rules land allotment Dwarka W.P. (C) 10989/2017 Rashtra Kumar
