JUDGMENT
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
(1) PETITIONER’S land in Village Bharoula, Delhi (North Zone) was acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi. The petitioner put forth his claim for allotment of an alternative plot of land. The Delhi Administration recommended for allotment of plot of 400 sq.mtr. in lieu of the petitioner’s land acquired by the Government. By the letter dated 12.5.1992 the respondent offered to the petitioner to allot a plot measuring 209 sq. mtr in Narela resettlement scheme on payment of provisional rate of Rs. 715.00 per sq. mtr. Thereafter, by the letter dated 18.1.1993 the respondent offered to the petitioner a plot measuring 334 sq. mtr. in Narela resettlement scheme at a provisional rent of Rs. 1550.60 per sq. mtr. The petitioner deposited Rs. 5,000.00 only by way of earnest money as demanded by the respondent vide letter dated 20th April, 1990 (Annexure B). The contention of the petitioner is that he is entitled to a plot in Shalimar Bagh or Pitampura or Rohni at the price prevailing in 1982 or 1986. Similar dispute was also agitated before a Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India & Ors., Air 1994 Delhi 29 and the Full Bench laid down the following principles :
(A)anindividual,whose land isacquired,doesnot have an absolute right to the allotment of alternative plot of land for residential purposes,and that such a person is only eligible to be considered for allotment of a plot, subject to certain conditions;
(B)that premium shall be chargeable from such a person at the predetermined rates prevailing on the date when the offer is made to him by the Dda for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or Zone, under the Nazul Rules.
(2) It was also held by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhagwana v. Union of India, that the Scheme of allotment of the respondent/DDA is that the plots are allotted zone wise and not locality wise. Whether the alternative plots should be allotted zone wise or locality wise is a matter of policy which does not call for any interference by this Court. The same view was also reiterated by another Division Bench of this Court in Khurshead Jahan v. D.D.A., 1997 Iii Ad (Delhi) 1053. In this view of the matter the petitioner cannot be heard to say either that alternative plot be allotted to him in the area of his choice and further that he is entitled to pay premium of the plot at the rates prevailing in 1982 or 1986. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.