Ranvir Singh v. Union Of India & ANR.

$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4843/2022 & CM APPL.14445/2022 RANVIR SINGH ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Akashdeep Pandey, Mr. P. P.

Singh and Mr. Aman Preet Singh, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

..... Respondents Through:

Mr. Nalin Hingorani, Proxy Advocate for Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R

% 24.04.2024 (The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid Mode) 1.

The petitioner in the present petition has sought the following reliefs:- "a) Issue an appropriate writ/order or directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the application dated 11.08.1998 for allotment of an alternative plot submitted by the petitioner in lieu of his acquired land of the petitioner, in the interest of justice;

b) Direct the respondents to allot an alternative plot as per the scheme/policy of the Govt. to the legal heirs of the original owner i.e. l/16th share of the petitioner, in lieu of acquired land measuring 55 bigha, 6 biswas situated in Village Matiala, New Delhi was acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi, as per Award passed by the Learned Land Acquisition Collector (LAC) bearing No. 164/86-87 dated 19.09.1986 vide Notification 45-4 No. FA(l16)64-L&B/3311 dated 27.1.1984 for the purpose of P.D.D. as per policy of the Govt. of NCT of W.P.(C) 4843/2022 1 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Delhi;"

2.

Notice was issued on 24.03.2022 in the present petition and the counter affidavit which was directed to be filed has not been filed till date.

3.

Mr. Nalin Hingorani, proxy counsel for Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on instructions, submits that despite their best efforts, the records pertaining to the petitioner have remained untraceable in their office. He suggests, under instructions, that the present writ petition be directed to be treated as a representation by the respondents. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection in case the present writ petition be treated as representation by the respondents. 5.

In view of the submissions of Mr. Nalin, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and having regard to the fact that original records are not traceable, it would be apposite to direct the respondents to consider the present writ petition along with all its annexures as a representation on behalf of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

6.

The petitioner will be afforded an opportunity of hearing and also to be entitled to place on record any additional documents, if so required. The date, time and venue of such hearing should be communicated to the petitioner in advance.

7.

It is made clear that the representation shall not be treated as a fresh application. The respondents shall consider the said representation and dispose of the same, preferably within a period of W.P.(C) 4843/2022 2 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

eight weeks from today by a speaking order.

8.

Needless to observe that the said order would be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing of such order.

9.

The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid directions. 10.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master to learned counsel appearing for the parties. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J APRIL 24, 2024 ms W.P.(C) 4843/2022 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.