Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

The land of the father of the petitioner Shri Balbir Singh located in Badli, Delhi was acquired vide Award dated 10.11.1981 and, thus, he made an application dated 20.5.1983 for allotment of an alternative plot under there scheme of the respondents for allotment of such plots on large- scale acquisition of the respondents for allotment of such plots on large-scale acquisition of land. The case of Shri Balbir Singh was considered favorably and the recommendation was made by the concerned Department on 31.7.1985 for an alternative plot of 400 sq. mtrs.

2. Shri Balbir singh also owned some land in Toganpur, Delhi which was also acquired and it is alleged that Shri Balbir Singh also made an application on 16.11.1987 for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the said land, even though in terms of the proforma to be filled, the concerned person had to disclose whether prior allotment of any plot had been made. This was so since a person could not be allotted more than one plot.

3. An offer of allotment was made by DDA on 20.4.1990 to Shri Balbir Singh for a plot of 180-200 sq-mtrs. In West Zone in lieu of the application related to acquisition of land in Badli and Shri Balbir Singh deposited a sum of Rs.5,000/- in acceptance of the said offer. Shri Balbir Singh passed away on 8.11.1990. The case of the allotment of plot against the land acquired at Toganpur Village was also processed and apparently a decision was taken to make an allotment to the petitioner. It appears that some, complaint was received by the respondent Department about to applications having been made and this complaint is stated to have been received on 30.4.1992. In the meantime, DDA demanded a sum of Rs.47,200/- in May, 1992 for allotment of plot against the land acquired at Badli, which has been deposited by the petitioner, who is the legal Shri Balbir Singh.

4. The petitioner apparently also came to know about the second allotment in lieu of land acquired at Toganpur and addressed a communication dated 22.5.1992 to the Land & Building Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi asking them not to process the same and expressed ignorance about how the application came to be made. The petitioner was, however, issued a show-issue notice dated 26.6.1992 on the ground that two applications had been filed and DDA was asked to withhold the allotment till further orders. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 13.7.1992 denying that his father had ever made a second application. The plea of the ignorance was, however, rejected and recommendation was made on 29.3.1994 for DDA to withdraw the recommendation. Thereafter, certain representations were made and the petitioner was asked to visit the office of the Land & Building Department for further verification. The Department referred the two applications to CFSL for comparing the thumb impressions affixed of late Shri Balbir Singh and the report of CFSL shows that the thumb impressions are not the same. Despite this fact, the earlier recommendation was not withdrawn and representations of the petitioner were finally rejected in terms of the impugned letter dated 9.2.1998.

5. It may be noticed that the petitioner had relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Trilok Chand Tyagi v. DDA & Ors., 68 (1997) DLT 544 (DB), but according to the respondents, the same was not applicable.

6. It may also be noticed that in terms of the original decision dated 29.3.1994 the reason for cancellation is stated to be the fact that it could not be believed that the petitioners were ignorant about the second recommendation and the application for withdrawal of the second recommendation was made after he had come top know of the factum of the Department having taken cognizance of the same, though the show-cause notice was issued subsequently.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner makes a two-fold submission: firstly, it has not been established that the two applications were made by Shri Balbir Singh, especially since even the thumb impressions were not found to be tallying. Secondly, in view of the judgment in Trilok Chand Tyagis case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that where such two applications were made, allotment could be processed at least in respect of first application.

8. This judgment has sought to be distinguished by learned Counsel for the respondent on the ground that in Trilok Tyagis case (supra), the applications are related to the same land, which had been acquired while in the present case, they relate to the land acquired in different villages and, thus, the two applications could not have been made. However, it may be noticed that in para 4 of the said judgment, it has been noticed that even thought while making the second application, an incorrect statement may have been made that no earlier application was made, the same cannot be a ground for rejection of the first application. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench in Trilok Tyagis case (supra), the plea of the respondent cannot be sustained.

9. In my considered view, the most important aspect is that there is no conclusion arrived at that these two application were filed by late Shri Balbir Singh. In fact, the reference to CFSL has shown that the applications bear two different thumb impressions. It is, thus, not clear as to who made that second application, though obviously it is not application of late Shri Balbir Singh. A presumption cannot thus be drawn against petitioner, who is the legal heir of late Shri Balbir Singh and came into picture much later.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that the decision of the respondents withdrawing the recommendation for allotment of a plot against the first application of late Shri Balbir Singh cannot be sustained and the same is quashed. The result would be that the petitioners would be entitled to the allotment in pursuance to the first application.

11. The consequence of the aforesaid is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by DDA vide letter dated 20.4.1990 read with the allotment letter of May, 1992 stands, revived. The petitioner has already deposited the payments in pursuance thereto amounting to Rs.52,200/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.47,200/-). It is, however, not clear as to what is the total cost of the plot. Learned Counsel for the petitioner volunteers that the allotment to be issued by DDA can be at current cost, but to the extent of the percentage that the payment has already been made out of the original cost, the earlier payment would be treated as in satisfaction of the said percentage of the cost of the plot since the amount is still lying with DDA. The balance amount will have to be paid at current cost.

12. The respondent to inform DDA about revival of the allotment in pursuance to the directions passed today within 15 days.

13. The DDA will take necessary action within a period of three months of the receipt of the Order, which should be sent to the DDA.

14. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.