Sardar Singh v. Land & Building Department

1. Relinquishment Deed executfd by i the other legal heirs ofthe dece~ed. !

2. Food Card, Election I-Card i'lnd 3 i specimen signature duly attested !

3. Affidavit in prescribedformqt for i, not owning immovable property in ': urban area of Delhi inclzl!.ding Group Housing Society Membership: details

4. Indemnity Bond

5. Status ofland not acquired lfllong with complete revenue record. The applicant has filed reply ~ the said letter on 10.04.13. In th~ said reply he has informed the sta~us of the unacquired land along wiith a copyofkhatauni for the year 2003- 04 which indicates that all of the brothers including the applicairt are Page[2] of[4] (~'. '.~ng their share irt t~e: ~Md measuring 11-9 which refl~cts i~hat the said land has not been f~red yet. As the land ofthe appfl{:an~~ has not been acquired in the entirety. in view of the judgment in case titled "Delhi Administration vs. Jai Singh Kanwar, (C.A. No. 8289 of201lP, dt. 141911[1] of SCI), the case is RE1ECTED. Though Mr. J.V. Rana, leamed counsel for the petitioners ~anc1idly • admits that petitioners are owners of o1lliter agricultural land approximately four bighas each, he points out that petitioners had given affidh~itS of undertaking to respondents stating that they will not claim altematiive plots · for remaining land, if acquired. Consequently, he submits that petitioners • are entitled to allotment of an alterria1iv·e plot. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjee!V Sahay, learned co~s~l!• fur • respondents states that the present conltroversy is squarely coveretl by the: judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authoritj ·v~ Jai ·. Singh Kanwar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 828912016 decided: on 14th September, 2011. Having heard the learned counSel fur •parties, this Court is ·df thei opinion that petitioners do not have a legal vested right for 8lll<i>tm~t of an: alternative plot in lieu of their acqu:i!r~ land. The respondents art;! all~ttingJ plots to persons whose lands have been acquired under a welfare ~d1eme~ Consequently, only those who fulfil the eligibility criteria shall be entitled to allotment under the said Rehabilitation Scheme. W.P. (C) 4848-484912013 Pag~ 3;of[4]... 1""-.., ··~ '!\ v' \ I The Supreme court in Delhi De,veldpment Authority vs. Jai Si.,gll, Kanwar & Ors. (supra) has mentioned 'that one of the eligibility co:m.didons for allotment of alternative plot is that applicant should neither own a house/residential plot/flat in a village abadi in his own name or in the name of his spouse or his dependent relati0hs nor he be a member of any cooperative housing society. Thereafter;the Supreme Court has dbserved as under:- "6......The object ofthe Schern,e is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and he is left without any house or plot, he should be ailotted a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house/residentialplot/flat will be ~ntitled to apply...... " In view of the aforesaid categorieal interpretation of the respondents' Scheme, this Court is ofthe view that only those applicants whose land have been taken away in entirety are entitled to an alternative house/plot/flat. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for petitioners lliat petitioners have given undertaking that they would not seek allotment of alternative house/plot/flat in the event their remaining land is acquired, is of no relevance. Consequently, as the petitioners' entire land has not been taken away by acquisition, petitioners' are not entitled for an alternative house/plot/flat. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions are dismissed.. AUGUST 02, 2013 rn