JUDGMENT
B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) The petitioner was a person who owned land in Village Pootkalan. His land was acquired by issuance of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi.
(2) The petitioner put forth his claim for allotment of an alternative plot of land. The Delhi Administration recommended that a plot measuring 250 sq.yards be allotted to the petitioner in the North Zone.
(3) The contention of the petitioner in this writ petition is that he is entitled to a developed plot of 250 sq. yards in the North Zone, preferably in Rohini Residential Scheme or in Pitam Pura Residential Scheme or in Prashant Vihar Residential Scheme at the price prevailing in 1987-88 which had been fixed. The petitioner is also claiming, in the alternative, a plot of land out of the plots which were proposed to be auctioned by the respondent in Rohini.
(4) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has aright for allotment of an alternative plot and this right flows from the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act.
(5) A Full Bench of this Court in C.Writ No.623/91(Ramanand v. UOI), vide judgment dated 30th July, has come to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 21 are not applicable in a case like the present because the land was Nazul land and the same is to be disposed of according to Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, read with Nazul Rules. It was, therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend that Section 21 is applicable in the present case. In view of the decision in Ramanand’s case (supra) we come to the conclusion that Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act is of no help to the petitioner because the land in question has not been transferred to the Dda, which is one of the pre-requisites of the applicability of the Section 21, and the land is Nazul land which can be disposed of according to Nazul Rules.
(6) It was sought to be contended that the land . was acquired for planned development of Delhi and this could only be done under Section 15 of the Delhi Development Act and, therefore, the land which was acquired could only be dealt with according to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act.
(7) This is putting the same wine in a different bottle. As has been observed already, the land in question is a Nazul land and has not been transferred to the DDA. Therefore, Section 21 does not come into play. As regards Section 15, the said provision does contemplate land being acquired for the purpose of development but that is not synonymous with “planned development of Delhi”. In the present case land has been acquired by the Central Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the planned development of Delhi. Thereafter, land has been placed at the disposal of the Dda as Nazul land and the entitlement of the petitioner has been considered by the Delhi Administration under Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules.
(8) It was submitted that the land of the petitioner was situated in Rohini and, therefore, he should be allotted a plot in the same locality. It will be seen from the letter of entitlement issued by the Delhi Administration that the plot is to be allotted to the petitioner in North Zone. 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. We do not find that the policy of the respondent to allot land or plots zone-wise is so arbitrary as to call for any interference by this Court.
(9) It has been explained by the learned counsel for the respondent that the allotment, zone-wise, is made by the computer and, therefore, the chances of favoritism stand eliminated. In Ramanand’s case (supra) although it was held that there is no right to allotment of an alternative plot, but nevertheless, all the persons whose lands were acquired and had applied to the Delhi Administration for allotment of alternative plots and whose cases have been sponsored have been allotted alternative plots. Mr. Sethi submits that in all cases where recommendations have been received by the Dda from the Delhi Administration for allotment of alternative plots by 30th June, 1991 have been allotted alternative plots of land. He candidly accepts that these allotments have been made during the pendency of this and other writ petitions and the respondents have shown a sense of urgency because of the pendency of these cases.
(10) The position which emerges as of today, therefore, is that as far as the petitioner is concerned he has been allotted a plot of land in Narela. The allotment has been made at a provisional rate of Rs. 1650.65 per sq.m. It was sought to be submitted that the rate of Rs. 1650.65 is very exhorbitant and the respondent should charge a lesser rate. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that the rate which has been fixed is provisional and this was so stated in the letter of allotment. An alternative plot is allotted, under the Nazul Rules, at the pre-determined rates. The said Rules postulate that the pre-determined rates have to be fixed by the Central Government. In the letter of allotment it is mentioned that the Central Government has yet to fix the pre-determined rates of such plots and the allottee will have to pay the rate so fixed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that if the Central Government fixes a rate lower than Rs. 1650.65 per sq.m. then, if the petitioner has made the payment for the plot at the said provisional rate, he would be entitled to refund of money. If on the other hand a higher rate is fixed then the allottee will have to pay the enhanced rate. The reason why allotment has been made even before the final fixation of the pre-determined rate, is to fix the date of allotment so that there will be little chance of escalation of the rate. If the determination of the rate is unduly delayed and allotments are not made till the final determination it is the allottees who would suffer. Therefore, in order that maximum benefits can be given to them, the allotment has been made at a provisional rate. The result of this will be that whenever the Central Government fixes the pre-determined rate this will have to be with respect to the date when the allotment has been made. We do not find the aforesaid action of the respondent in any way arbitrary or unjustified. Infact it is for the benefit of the allottees.
(11) Before concluding we may record that Mr. Sethi has submitted that if individual requests are received for change of plots within the same zone, then the said requests will be considered on their own merits and if the applicants can be accommodated, they will be so accommodated. But this cannot he construed as aright.
(12) During the pendency of the writ petition Bhagwana, the petitioner herein, had died and his legal representatives are directed to be brought on record.
(13) The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. There will be no order as to costs.