Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order : 14th November 2022
SMT. SAVITRI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate.
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for calling the record of file No. F.33(90)/533/2006/L&B/Alt./Seniority No.4879 relating to application for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land of the petitioner: AND
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for the respondent to quash the order/letter no. F.33(90)/533/2006/L&B/Alt./3274 dated 03.01.2022, by which application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot was illegally rejected; OR To issue direction for respondent to issue recommendation letter in favour of petitioner for allotment of alternative plot to DDA at the earliest”.
2. The facts of the present case are that Smt. Savitri Devi with her sons namely, Sh. Sandeep and Pradeep, r/o Village Barwala, Delhi, were shown as bhumuidar of the land comprising in Khasra No.11//21/2(2-07), 22(4-16), 48//18(4-16), 19(4-16),22(4-16) and 23(4-16), total measuring 26 bigha 07 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Barwala, Delhi, in equal shares, since 1981-82. The appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide notification no. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/ 2011[2] dated 21st March 2003 to compulsory acquire the land measuring 6129 bigha 10 biswas 10 biswansi, situated in revenue estate of Village Barwala, Delhi, and declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published vide notification no. F.11(19)/2001/L&B/LA/28281 dated 19th March 2004 for aforesaid land including the aforesaid land of the Petitioner.
3. The Award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, being Award No. 12 of 2005-06 was drawn on 5th August 2005. The possession of the acquired land was taken on 6th October 2005, by the appropriate Government/acquiring authority and the compensation of acquired land under this award to the tune of Rs.45,54,629/- was disbursed to the Petitioner on 21st October 2005 by the Land Acquisition Collector.
4. On 15th May 2006, the Petitioner applied for making recommendation for allotment of alternative land under the „Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi Scheme, 1961‟ in the office of Land & Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. The file for making recommendation, created by the office of Land & Building Department, was dealt in file No.F.33(90)/533/2006/L&B/ Alt. In compliance of the order of the Delhi High Court a seniority list was prepared by the office of Land & Building Department. In the said seniority list, the Petitioner was given seniority no. 4879.
5. The office of Respondent sent a letter dated 28th April 2018 to the Petitioner to furnish the requisite documents. Reply to the said letter was submitted by the Petitioner; in the office of Respondent on 1st June 2018 vide diary no.18/19430. After considering the seniority list prepared by the Land & Building Department, the office of District Magistrate called the Petitioner for personal hearing in view of the general direction issued by the Delhi High Court. So, a letter dated 18th September 2019 for personal hearing was issued for 22nd September 2019.
6. On 22nd October 2010, the Petitioner submitted an application to the Chairperson of the Scrutiny Committee for providing an opportunity to submit documents and extension of time, in respect of letter dated 18th September 2019 for personal hearing in the office of District Magistrate (Recommendation Committee).
7. In its meeting held on 26th November 2019, the Recommendation Committee rejected the application of the Petitioner. Finally, an order dated 3rd January 2022 was passed by the office of the District Magistrate (North)/Respondent, to the Petitioner, whereby it was conveyed that the (District Level Recommendation Committee) has decided not to recommend the case of the Petitioner, due to non-compliance of abovementioned notices, public notice and non-submission of requisite documents as well as because the applicant is having a house in abadi.
8. Aggrieved with the rejection of his application, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that she has filed an application for allotment of alternative plot on 15th May 2006, but the concerned authority, vide order dated 3rd January 2022, rejected the said application i.e., after about 16 years. The application for alternative plot was rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is having a plot/constructed house situated in abadi area and also on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents.
10. It is also submitted that the Petitioner is not having any plot/constructed house in the abadi area and has become landless. Therefore, it is submitted that as per the scheme of 1961, Petitioner is entitled for an alternative plot.
11. Per Contra, learned counsel for the Respondent vehemently submitted that the application for the alternative plot of the Petitioner has been rejected by the competent authority on two aspects: - first, Petitioner has failed to supply the copy of the requisite documents as required, despite giving ample opportunity for supplying the same and giving notice by publication in the daily newspaper and secondly, the Petitioner is having plot in the village abadi area.
12. It is further submitted that if the scheme has been introduced by the Government to enable the citizens to have a roof over their head does not mean that the scheme is meant for the enrichment of people. It is also submitted that in view of the law settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is now settled that if a person is having any plot against acquisition made, he is not entitled for alternative plot. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the competent authority and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.
13. In the rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner was never given any notice requiring documents to be supplied.
14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issues to be adjudicated by this Court are: Issue 1- If the person is having a plot/constructed house in the area of Abadi, would he be entitled for alternative plot under scheme of 1961? Issue 2- Whether the Petitioner has supplied the requisite documents despite sufficient notice being given?
15. This Court has perused the impugned order and finds it apposite to look at the contents of the same for proper adjudication of the matter. The relevant portion of the impugned Order is reproduced hereunder: - “Whereas, an application was received from Sh. Smt. Savitri Devi W /o Jai Kishan, R/o H.No.340, VPO Barwala, Delhil10039 on 15.05.2006 for allotment of alternative plot as per Government policy in lieu of acquisition of land of village Barwala vide Award No.12/2005-06. Whereas, Committee observed that notice dated 28.04.2018 was issued to the applicant to submit the requisite documents & also two Public Notices dated 13.05.2018 and 23.08.2018 were also published in two dailies i.e., Hindi and English to submit the requisite documents within the period of one month. Further, personal hearing notices dated 18.09.2019 and 19.11.2019 were issued to the applicant with the request to appear before the Recommendation Committee for personal hearing on 22.09.2019 at 10.00 AM and 26.11.2019 at 12.30 PM, but none appeared. Whereas, concerned Tehsildar has also inquired into the matter and submitted his report stating therein that applicant is having house in abadi as per Tehsildar report. Whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in Civil Appeal No.8289/ 2010, 8290/ 2010 of Delhi Development Authority V/s Jai Singh Kanwar has held that "the object of the scheme 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 allotted a plot. The scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house/ residential plot/ flat will be entitled to apply." Whereas, the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in WPC No.12306/15 titled as Surender Singh Mann Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi decided on 25.08.2017 that "The Policy of the Government as is evident from the scheme was to provide residential plots to farmers whose land has been acquired: it was a rehabilitative measure: meaning thereby that it was to rehabilitate those farmers whose land has been acquired as they has become homeless or landless. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner has been acquired: yet before his allotment could be processed, the wife of the petitioner has acquired a property in her own name meaning thereby that clause 3 (highlighted supra) created a hurdle in the case of the petitioner and since his wife already owned a plot in her name on the date when the allotment was to be issued, the petitioner was not entitled to an alternative plot. It is also not the case of the petitioner that his wife was not dependent on him". Committee is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for alternative plot. Hence, the Committee recommends the application of the applicant for REJECTION. In view of the position mentioned above, the District Level Recommendation Committee has decided not to recommend the case of Smt. Savitri Devi W/o Jai Kishan, R/o H.No.340, VPO Barwala, Delhi-ll0039, due to non-compliance of above-mentioned notices, public notice and non-submission of requisite documents and applicant is having house in abadi.” Answer to Issue 1-
16. In the instant matter, the relevant conditions, which became the ground for rejection of Petitioner’s application, were that he held land in abadi area and was not landless and that despite notices being published, he did not provide the requisite documents for consideration of his application.
17. The condition of holding a plot/residential accommodation being a bar for consideration of application of allotment of alternative plot is bar which finds mention in the first as well as the subsequently modified version of the Scheme of 1961. The availability of an existing plot in the name of the owner or any of his dependent, including his/her spouse or even unmarried children, creates a bar on the eligibility of the person to have an alternative plot allotted in his/her favour.
18. The subject matter of the Scheme of 1961 was “Control of land values in the Urban Areas of Delhi- Acquisition, development and Disposal of Land” which came into force on 2nd May 1961 and has been modified from time to time. The Scheme not only provided for measures for controlling value in urban areas but also largely regulated the conditions stipulated for acquisition, development and disposal of land.
19. The objective of the Scheme of 1961 suggests as under: “The scheme of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure”
20. Further, in Surinder Singh Mann vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 12306/2015 decided on 25th August 2017, the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under: - “7. At this stage, it would also be useful to extract the eligibility criteria of the Government which had been approved by the Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 1961 dealing with allotment of alternate plots. The object of the scheme reads as under: - “The scheme of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure”
8. The object thus clearly being to provide developed residential plots to farmers whose land had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi; this being a rehabilitative measure. 12.…. The Policy of the Government as is evident from the scheme was to provide residential plots to farmers whose land had been acquired; it was a rehabilitative measure; meaning thereby that it was to rehabilitate those farmers whose land had been acquired as they had become homeless or landless.”
21. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Amrit Kumari vs. Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1624, also held that a scheme for allotment of alternative plots is purely a welfare scheme formulated to rehabilitate the farmers whose land had been acquired.
22. In State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC 639, the Hon’ble Supreme Court elaborated on the general principle and provisions for rehabilitation and observed as under: - “Land acquisition and rehabilitation: Article 21
26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to ensure that as far as practicable persons who had been living and carrying on business or other activity on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing to purchase and comply with any requirement of the authority or the local body, be given a piece of land on the terms settled with due regard to the price at which the land has been acquired from them. However, the State Government cannot be compelled to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees and it is for the authority concerned to consider the desirability and feasibility of providing alternative land considering the facts and circumstances of each case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only for those persons who have been rendered destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition. The authorities must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of employment, housing, investment opportunities, and identification of alternative lands. “10. … A blinkered vision of development, complete apathy towards those who are highly adversely affected by the development process and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of the laws lead to a situation where the rights and benefits promised and guaranteed under the Constitution hardly ever reach the most marginalised citizens.” (Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. case [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450: JT (2010) 7 SC 352], SCC p. 273, para 10) For people whose lives and livelihoods are intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic. (Vide State of U.P. v. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251: AIR 1986 SC 2025], Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority [(2002) 4 SCC 666: AIR 2002 SC 2036], Land Acquisition Officer v. Mahaboob [(2009) 14 SCC 54: (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 297], Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450: JT (2010) 7 SC 352] and Brij Mohan v. HUDA [(2011) 2 SCC 29: (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 336].) The fundamental right of the farmer to cultivation is a part of right to livelihood. “Agricultural land is the foundation for a sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured possession is a lasting source for peace and prosperity.” India being a predominantly agricultural society, there is a “strong linkage between the land and the person's status in [the] social system”.
23. Hence, it is evident that the Scheme of 1961 was introduced as a means to provide for those whose land is acquired for the purposes of development and to ensure that such persons are not rendered homeless or landless in the event of such acquisition.
24. However, the Scheme for alternative plot does not confer a direct and absolute right to any person whose land is acquired. The Scheme provides for certain conditions which need to be fulfilled, which were updated and modified with time and as per requirements. These conditions acted as eligibility criteria for the land owners whose lands were acquired and who became entitled to be considered for allotment of alternate plot, subject to the conditions laid.
25. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the first Scheme are reproduced hereunder: -
26. With subsequent amendments and modifications in the successive years, the Scheme ultimately provided for the following eligibility criteria for allotment of alternate plot: -
27. The Division Bench of this Court in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Veerwati, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1444, and its connected LPAs, held that there are four requisite conditions for consideration while filing and adjudicating the application for allotment of alternative plot. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: -
28. The same have also been reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Ranjeet Singh vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10794, wherein it was observed as under: -
29. An examination of the objective of the Scheme read with the observations made in the abovementioned judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, definitively and unambiguously indicate that the Scheme of 1961 is targeted to those individuals, villagers, farmers etc. who may be rendered homeless or landless upon their land being acquired by the Government, or any Authority under it, for the purposes of development. The very structure of the Scheme suggests that it is a welfare and rehabilitative measure for those affected by the actions taken in the process of development of the State of NCT of Delhi.
30. Being considered for compensation, whether monetary or in the form of alternate plot, is an entitlement which is available to individuals who fulfil the criteria provided for under the Scheme. Those who lose their homes or their agricultural lands, that are the only source of their livelihood, are the custodians of schemes like these and rightly so need to be facilitated as soon as possible. Such individuals, owners, villagers, farmers and their families cannot and should not be left remediless after their land is acquired.
31. However, it should also be borne in mind that in garb of such welfare schemes, those who have alternative and effective means of sustaining a life do not take unfair advantage of the schemes and welfare provisions of the Government and its Authorities. Keeping in mind the objective of the Scheme, it is found that enforcing an eligibility criterion for consideration of application of allotment of alternate land is not unreasonable or unfair and is in fact required for ensuring that the active and effective measures reach those who are in need.
32. In the instant matter, the perusal of the contents of the impugned Order reveals that as per the report of the Tehsildar the Petitioner owns a land in village abadi. Even if he argues that he does not live in village abadi, it is an admitted fact that he is the owner of a house in Delhi. As discussed above, the position is clear for those individuals whose land has been acquired and who seek alternative accommodation or plot, they are to fulfil the necessary conditions of the Scheme of 1961, in consonance with the objective the Scheme seeks to achieve. The Petitioner has relied upon the modified Scheme of 1961, however, has failed to appreciate that the relevant point of the said modified Scheme reads as under: - “8. If a landholder himself or his spouse or any other dependent relation, including unmarried children- (a)Is in possession of a residence or residential plot, a part thereof, either on leasehold or free-hold, in the National Capital territory of Delhi except in Village abadi, and/or (b)Has already been allotted/recommended an alternative plot, and/or
(c) Is a member of any cooperative House Building
33. Hence, in light of the above discussion, the Petitioner was already ineligible at the first instance as per the mandate of the Scheme of 1961. Therefore, this Court does not find force in the argument of the Petitioner that as per the modification in the year 1993 in Scheme of 1961, if an applicant owns a land in village abadi, it will not create a bar for recommending him for allotment of alternative plot. It is pertinent here to refer to Ranjeet Singh (supra) in this regard.
34. Therefore, Petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to allotment of alternative land merely because he owns a land in abadi area and not in the Lal Dora. Answer to Issue 2:
35. Further, the Petitioner also failed to supply certain documents, as were required by the Committee to consider his application despite there being publication of notices regarding the same, which would have helped his case to show any facts contrary to what was observed by the concerned Authority.
36. The Petitioner has not been able to prove his case for being considered for the allotment of alternate land because of the deficiencies and inaction on his part. The Petitioner was granted opportunity at several occasions for submissions of requisite documents and personal hearing for his case being considered under the Scheme through personal notices as well as through public notice. However, the Petitioner failed in appearing before the authorities and submitting the requisite documents.
37. Public Notice is one important means of notification to the citizens at large or to a section of stakeholders regarding a proceeding ongoing before an authority. The ordinary business practice is to publish the public notice in two different languages in widely-circulated newspapers, and containing all necessary information. The said notice must be achievable, accessible and verifiable. In the case of Sridhar M. A. Vs. Metalloy N. Steel Corporation (2000) 1 SCC 397, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in appropriate cases, deemed service of notice may be accepted by the Court and this will depend on the facts of each case. Accordingly, in the instant case, the public notice made shall be considered to be deemed notice to the Petitioner.
38. Therefore, even if, for the sake of argument, the earlier notices are deemed not to be served, the public notice issued by the Respondent in newspapers in two languages – i.e., English and Hindi, shall be deemed to be a valid service, and accordingly the Petitioner cannot claim the benefit of being unserved.
39. Keeping in view the observations and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs and the facts and circumstances, it is found that the concerned authority/Respondent appreciated the facts and record before it in light of the established principles of law and in accordance of the scheme of provisions and conditions under the Scheme of 1961 and then passed the impugned Order. With the modifications brought about in the Scheme over the course of time, the bar to allotment of alternate land to those who have a plot/land/flat in their name or in the name of their dependents etc. has remained a part of the scheme throughout.
40. This Court does not find any illegality, impropriety or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned rejection order dated 3rd January 2022, passed by the concerned Authority. There is no reason to interfere with the said impugned Order passed on the application of the Petitioner.
41. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
42. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
JUDGE NOVEMBER 14, 2022 ns/mg