Sunil Ravi Prakash Agrawal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr

Delhi High Court · 22 Aug 2014 · 2014:DHC:4057

Suresh Kait, J.

W.P.(C) No.5342/2014

2014:DHC:4057

property petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that limitation periods prescribed by non-statutory notices for allotment of alternative land cannot be rigidly enforced and quashed the rejection of the petitioner’s application on such grounds.

Full Text

W.P.(C) No.5342/2014 HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGMENT

delivered on:22nd August, 2014

W.P.(C) 5342/2014
SUNIL RAVI PRAKASH AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: NEMO.

Versus

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R1.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R2.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No.10630/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, instant application is allowed.

W.P.(C) 5342/2014

1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the impugned decision taken by respondent no. 1 in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 03.01.2014 (Meeting held on 13.12.2013) of the Recommendation Committee constituted for recommendation of alternative plot, whereby the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot has been rejected.

2. Further seeks quashing of the rejection letter dated 27.01.2014 issued by respondent no. 1, which has not been received by the petitioner till date.

3. The ground of rejection is that the petitioner did not move an application in specified period limitation of three months. In Delhi Land 2014:DHC:4057 Reforms Act, there is no such limitation and if the order is passed after 26 years on the ground that the application moved by the petitioner was beyond the limitation period 3 months, it is not justified.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner made an application vide dated 22.12.1988 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired by respondent.

5. Similar issue came before this Court in the case W.P.(C) 7123/2013 titled as Sunder Pal v. Land and Building Department, wherein held as under:

4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that similar issue came before this Court in the case of Simla Devi Vs. Secretary & Ors. 140(2007) DLT 474 wherein in Paragraph 3 facts of that case recorded as under:-

“3. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner received land acquisition compensation as determined by the land acquisition Award on 6.3.1997 and that she applied for allotment of alternative land on 1.7.1998. The application was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.10.1999. The reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application is that pursuant to a public notice stated to have been issued on 30.11.1993 in the newspaper individuals whose lands had been acquired after 31.12.1998 were required to apply for allotment of an alternative plot latest by 31.1.1994 of “within one year from completion of acquisition proceedings whichever is later.” Since in the present case the petitioner received compensation on 6.3.1997, it is contended that the application for alternative allotment should have been submitted latest by 5.3.1998 whereas it was submitted on 1.7.1998. Therefore, the only reason for rejection of the petitioner’s application for being considered

for alternate allotment was that it was “time barred case”.

5. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, this Court held as under:-

“5. This Court is of the view that the reason adduced by the respondent for not considering petitioner’s application for allotment of an alternative plot is not tenable. Even earlier this Court had passed an order on 20.10.2003 directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s application. Pursuant thereto the respondent rejected the said representation by the impugned order only on the ground that it was “time barred”. The so-called public notice is neither a statutory notice nor is a gazetted noted which is presumed to have been known by everyone. On the contrary the notice was published, if at all, in the newspapers only once in 1993. In the circumstances, to contend that someone in 1997 applying for allotment of alternative land should be presumed to know the time limit that is stipulated in a notice printed in the newspaper four years earlier is being unrealistic and impractical. There is nothing so immutable about the time limit set in the notice that the respondent should be precluded from considering an application which is delayed by about four month. Since this is a time limit set by the respondents themselves, surely in deserving cases like the present, where the applicant cannot be presumed to know of the time limit, such a delay ought to have been condoned. On the contrary thee refusal to condone the delay would result in injustice.”

6. Admittedly, against the acquired land of the petitioner, he received compensation on 30.01.1990 and an application was moved in June, 1990, i.e., within six months of the compensation received.

7. In view of the facts of the case in hand and the aforenoted dictum of this Court, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 is hereby quashed.

8. Consequently, respondent department is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot within two months.

9. The decision of the respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner within 10 days thereafter.”

6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 on advance notice submits that petitioner received the compensation on 11.11.1987 and applied for allotment of alternative plot vide application dated 22.12.1988, which is beyond the present limitation of 1 year and the limitation of 3 months prevalent at that time.

6,124 characters total

7. Ld. Counsel further submits that in terms of the policy of 02.05.1961, there was no limitation clause, however, in the subsequent amendment thereto, if any, there is limitation.

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the ground taken by the respondent is only limitation of three years. Therefore, the respondent no.1 is directed to take the decision as per the Rules enforced as on date.

9. In view of above, impugned order dated 27.01.2014 is hereby set aside. The decision taken by the Management Committee in the Minutes of the Meeting dated 03.01.2014 of the meeting held on 13.01.2013 is also set aside qua the petitioner.

10. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot within two months. The decision taken by the said respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner within 10 days thereafter.

11. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondent no.1, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.

12. The petition is allowed on the above terms. CM. No.10629/2014 (for stay) With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has become infructuous and disposed of as such.

SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 22, 2014 jg

Sunil Ravi Prakash Agrawal v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation