AMIT KHERA Vs. MCD
LAWS(DLH)-2012-12-420
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on December 10,2012

AMIT KHERA Appellant
VERSUS
MCD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Pleadings in the matter are complete. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
(2.)The facts to be noticed for disposal of this writ petition are that father of the petitioner (late Sh.Banarsi Dass) was in the trade of supplying milk in Delhi for more than four decades and was running a dairy from his residential address. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the Government policy it was directed to shift the diary business from residential colonies. The petitioner's father was allotted a plot free of cost being plot No.A-187 Ghauroli Dairy, as per the demand collection register of 1976, his name was recorded at serial No.107 in file No.21. As per the writ petition after the death of late Sh.Banarsi Dass, petitioner stepped into his shoes and took over the family trade and at that time he owned eight buffalos and four cows. It is however, stated that at present it is not allowed to run a dairy from residential colonies. Accordingly, the petitioner has shifted his diary to the State of U.P. and is supplying more than 200 liters of milk in Delhi.
(3.)Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 1976, a survey was conducted for the purposes of shifting the dairy business from residential colonies to a developed dairy colony. As per the survey, petitioner's father was found eligible and plot being plot No.A-187 Ghauroli Dairy, was allotted to him. It is also the case of the petitioner that after the said allotment, no communication was received by the petitioner's father, although the petitioner's father kept visiting the respondent and enquired about the allotment. It is only in the year 2001 petitioner's father was shocked to receive a letter from the respondent with regard to the plot in question, however, the name of the father was wrongly written as 'Kashi Ram', although the address and parentage was correct. Thereafter the petitioner's father approached the respondent personally and asked them to correct his name and issue a fresh demand letter, to enable him to deposit the requisite amount. The respondent did not adhere to the request of the petitioner's father, nor a fresh demand notice was issued. It is claimed that the petitioner's father sent a register letter and even served a legal notice through his counsel, however, no reply was received. The father of the petitioner was also suffering from acute eye disease and he was substantially blind. On one occasion when he was carrying the complete file of his documents on 06.04.2005 he drooped /lost the file for which an FIR was lodged in the concerned police station and thus no documents are available with the petitioner.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.