Shri Balesh Kumar v. Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi

$~16 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6792/2018, CM No. 25777/2018 SHRI BALESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, Adv.

versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

O R D E R

% 09.07.2018 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the communication dated October 18, 2017 by which the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land was rejected by the Recommendation Committee on the ground that the petitioner has not furnished the requisite documents i.e. affidavit and occupancy status. Mr. Naresh K. Daksh, learned counsel for the petitioner states, the petitioner had earlier submitted an affidavit and the occupancy status certificate.

2.

He has drawn my attention to pages 35 and 59 of the paper book in support of his contention that the said documents were in fact submitted to

the authority. He concedes to the fact that a new / another affidavit was filed by the petitioner which is at page 76 of the paper book and the same is incomplete, as it has certain blanks and also not signed by the deponent. Without going into the disputed facts, he states, the petitioner shall submit documents as referred to by the respondent in the impugned communication i.e. affidavit and occupancy status certificate within six weeks from today. 3.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain states, if the petitioner intends to file the documents now, the same has to be on certain conditions, as the petitioner was guilty of not filing earlier.

4.

Noting the submission made and keeping in view the order made in Harbir Singh vs. Land & Building Department, W.P. (C) 5536/2018, on May 22, 2018, as the petitioner is guilty of not furnishing the documents, despite being directed and on which ground the request of the petitioner qua allotment of alternative plot was rejected, subject to the petitioner depositing costs of `15,000/- with the Delhi High Court Advocates Welfare Trust, the documents shall be submitted by the petitioner to the respondent within six weeks. If any discrepancies are found in the documents submitted by the petitioner, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks of consideration by the Recommendation

Committee. The discrepancies, if any, shall be cured by the petitioner within a week thereafter. The Recommendation Committee shall consider the application in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of.

CM No. 25777/2018 (for stay) Dismissed as infructuous.

Dasti.

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J JULY 09, 2018/aky