Sunder Pal v. Land & Building Department

Delhi High Court · 04 Aug 2014 · 2014:DHC:3663

Suresh Kait

W.P.(C) 7123/2013

2014:DHC:3663

administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that limitation periods prescribed by non-statutory public notices cannot bar allotment of alternative plots in land acquisition cases and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's application.

Full Text

W.P.(C) No.7123/2013 HIGH COURT OF DELHI

JUDGMENT

delivered on: 4th August, 2014

W.P.(C) 7123/2013
SUNDER PAL ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. N.S. Dalal and Mr. Amit Rana, Advs.

Versus

LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Despite repeated opportunities, counter-affidavit filed by the respondent is not on record. Therefore, respondent’s right to file counteraffidavit is forfeited.

2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to quash the order dated 16.08.2013 vide which the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of the land of the petitioner was ordered to be rejected on the ground of limitation.

3. Vide impugned order dated 16.08.2013, respondent passed order as under: “With reference to the above-mentioned subject, it is to inform you that your case for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land has been placed before the meeting of Recommendation Committee held on 12.07.2013 and the 2014:DHC:3663 Committee observed that Shri Ved Ram, the applicant has applied for allotment of alternative plot on 20.07.1990. The land of the applicant was acquired vide Award NO. 6D/SUPP/86-87 on 19.06.1986 and compensation of the same was received by him on 30.01.1990 as per his application form. In view of the notice dated 14.09.1987 the recorded owners whose land was acquired were required to apply for allotment of alternative plot within the period of three months of receipt of the compensation against the acquired land. In the instant case, the applicant failed to apply for alternative plot within 3 months after receipt of the compensation on 30.01.1990 and the case is therefore, time barred, hence REJECTED.”

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 afore-noted 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.

10. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondent, he is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

11. The petition is allowed in above terms.

SURESH KAIT, J AUGUST 04, 2014 Jg/sb

Sunder Pal v. Land & Building Department

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation