Ishwar Singh v. Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr

1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for direction to the respondents to quash the order dated 08.09.2016 by which the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land was rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner was acquired in phases. After the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the first phase, the petitioner applied for alternative plot vide application dated 03.06.1988. Subsequently, the respondent herein wrote a letter dated 23.03.1992 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was advised to approach the concerned authority after acquisition of his remaining land.

3. It is submitted that the remaining land of the petitioner was also subsequently acquired and award bearing No 30/2002-03 dated 09.12.2002 was passed. Thus, as per award petitioner received compensation amount after second phase of acquisition of his land.

4. After acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the second phase and in the facts and circumstances of the case that since the entire land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent, in terms of the directions as given by respondent in its letter dated 23.03.1992, the petitioner herein again approached the respondent. Thus, representations dated 20.02.2004, 02.03.2012, 18.07.2014 and 15.09.2014 were made by the petitioner to the respondent for allotment of alternative plot. Pursuant to his representation, a letter dated 29.06.2015 was received by the petitioner from the Land and Building Department (Alternative Branch). By way of the said letter, respondent directed the petitioner to submit certain other documents.

5. Despite seeking further documents from the petitioner by letter dated 29.06.2015, the respondent herein by order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the first phase, application for alternate allotment of land was made by the petitioner within the stipulated time. Since complete land of the petitioner at that point of time had not been acquired, he was advised by the respondent to approach the said authority after acquisition of his complete land. Thus, it is submitted that impugned letter dated 08.09.2016 rejecting the case of the petitioner, is totally illegal.

7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to the case of his brother Satbir Singh, who was similarly placed as the petitioner. Thus, by letter dated 28.04.2017 issued by the Land and Building Department (Alternative Branch), which contains the Minutes of the meeting held on 20.04.2017 by the Recommendation Committee, the case of the real brother of the petitioner was considered. The documents that were furnished by the brother of the petitioner in the year 2017 were considered by the Recommendation Committee and the brother of the petitioner was allotted alternative land. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner should also be considered on the same lines.

8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:

I. Maman Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2018 SCC OnLine

II. Dharam Pal Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015

9. Ld. Counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. She submits that after the first application by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner had been closed at that point of time, since complete land of the petitioner had not been acquired. Thus, she submits that the petitioner was required to make an application in a proper format for the purposes of alternative allotment of land. Since the petitioner did not make a proper application as per the requirement of the respondent, the case of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. Ld. Counsel for the respondent relies upon judgment in the case of Raj Karan and Ors. Vs. Land and Building Department, reported as 148 (2008) DLT 460.

10. I have heard ld. Counsel for the parties.

11. A per facts pleaded before this court, when the land of the petitioner was acquired in part in the first phase, the petitioner had duly approached the respondent and had filed an application dated 03.06.1988 for allotment of an alternative plot.

12. Respondent by its letter dated 23.03.1992 had advised the petitioner herein to approach the respondent later after rest of the land of the petitioner had also been acquired. Thus, when the remaining land of the petitioner was subsequently acquired in the second phase and an award dated 09.12.2002 was passed, the petitioner herein approached the respondent by way of various representations.

13. When the petitioner had initially made the application for alternative allotment of land within the specified time and within the period of limitation, there is no justification for the respondent herein to reject the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner herein was barred by limitation. The representations made subsequently by the petitioner for allotment of alternative land after acquisition of his entire land, were made in consonance with the letter dated 23.03.1992 issued by the respondent wherein the petitioner was advised to approach the respondent after acquisition of his entire land. After receipt of representations from the petitioner made after acquisition of his entire land, the respondent had also written a letter to the petitioner seeking further information and documents by way of letter dated 29.06.2015. Letter dated 29.06.2015 written by respondent to the petitioner reads as under: “Government of NCT of Delhi Land & Building Department (Alternative Branch) D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi – 02 No. F.31(5)/10/87/L&B/Alt/6228 29.6.15 To Sh. Ishwar Singh S/o Late Shri Lai, Village & P.O. Pochan Pur, New Delhi Sub: Request regarding re-consideration of pending case for the allotment of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land. Sir, On the subject cited above, as your case is under consideration for the inclusion of your name in the draft seniority list, the competent Authority desired some information, which may help an early decision in your case. You are, therefore, requested to furnish following information Notification wise immediately.