Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: 17th October 2022
DAYAWATI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate Mr. Achal Gupta, Advocate for
GNCTD
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
ORDER
1. The instant writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ of mandamus or an order, direction in the nature of mandamus or any other writ provision for issuing a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ against the respondent by set-asiding the rejection order dated 28.01.2021 in respect of the alternative plot passed by the respondent and allow the recommendation of alternative plot to the petitioners in lieu of their acquired land. b) Pass the direction for reconsider the matter of the petitioners' case/application for alternative plot by the competent officials of the respondent having vast legal knowledge of scheme laid down by Govt. of NCT of Delhi in respect of alternative plots by remanding the matter.”
2. The father of the petitioners, Jagdish Yadav, was the owner of the land situated in the Village of Samaypur, Delhi which was acquired vide Award No. 42/84-85. Upon acquisition of his land, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners applied for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of his land under the Scheme dated 2nd May 1961 for “Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi” (hereinafter “Scheme of 1961”).
3. On the said application, the respondent passed the order bearing no. F.33(29)/59/69/2011/L&B/alt/533 dated 28th January 2021 rejecting the application of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest on the ground of delay and part of his land remaining in Lal Dora.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved of the said rejection order have sought the aforementioned prayers by way of filing the instant petition.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the grounds taken by the respondent while rejecting the application of the predecessor-in-interest are unfounded since the petitioners do not own any residential plot outside the village abadi area. It is submitted that the petitioners are residing in the village with a big family and they, therefore, seek rehabilitation from the respondent, as has been granted to other villagers as well.
6. It is submitted that therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 28th January 2021 is liable to be set aside.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that as per the Scheme of 1961 the claim of the applicant was rightly rejected since, first, their application was barred by limitation as per the Scheme and secondly, certain part of their land remained in Lal Dora.
8. It is submitted that the petitioners are not eligible for an alternative plot in light of the findings of the Recommendation Committee and hence, the instant petition too is liable to be dismissed for being devoid of merit.
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. This Court has also perused the impugned order dated 28th January 2021 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 on 28.12.2011 from Sh. Jagdish S/o Kishan Lal R/o H. No. 69, Gali No. 9, VPO Samaypur, Delhi-110042 for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of his/her acquired land of village Samaypur vide Award No. 42/84-85. Whereas, in the meeting held on 28.01.2021, the Recommendation Committee observed that notice dated 13.07.2018 was issued to the applicant to submit the documentary evidence/payment certificate to verify the date of compensation and explain as to why his application should not be rejected as application is filed after the expiry of one year from the date of compensation and Public Notice dated 23.08.2018 was also published in two dailies i.e. Hindi and English to submit the requisite documents. Further, personal hearing notices dated 03.10.2019 and 23.12.2020 were issued to the applicant with the request to appear before the Recommendation Committee for personal hearing on 24.10.2019 at 12.30 PM and 28.01.2021 at 11.00 AM. Whereas, concerned Tehsildar has also inquired into the matter and submitted his report stating therein that applicant is having remaining land and residential house in lal dora as per Tehsildar report. xxxxxxxxx Whereas, as per legal opinion received from Land & Building Department, it is evident that “In view of the interpretation of scheme of 1961 by the various judgments of Delhi High Court on the basis of full bench judgment of Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Jai Singh Kanwar in Civil Appeal No. 8289 of 2010 dated 14.09.2011 it is clear that the person who owned any shelter over their head whether it is in the village abadi, Lal Dora, extended Lal Dora/urbanized village or urban area are not entitled for allotment of alternative plot.” Hence, the Committee recommends the application of the applicant for REJECTION.”
11. In the instant matter, the relevant conditions, which became the ground for rejection of application of the petitioners’ predecessor-ininterest, were that he already held land in Lal Dora and was not landless, he failed to apply for the alternative plot within the prescribed period and that despite notices being published, he did not provide the requisite documents for consideration of his application and also did not appear for personal hearings.
12. The Scheme of 1961 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.
13. 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”
14. This objective has also been reiterated by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases. A coordinate bench of this Court in Jai Singh Kanwar vs. Union of India 2008 SCC OnLine Del 492 made the following observations:- “7.[2] Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley explained the rationale for the policy was to see that the population of Delhi is properly housed and has the means for acquiring residential houses and further that if a person has bought a residential plot privately and the State chooses to acquire that land at a very meagre price, then surely it is the duty of the State to give an alternative plot at a moderate price to those persons who have been deprived of possible residential houses, which they could have constructed on the land they have acquired”
15. Further, in Surinder Singh Mann vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 12306/2015 decided on 25th August 2017 a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:-
16. Hence, it is evident that the Scheme of 1961 was introduced 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.
17. 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 conditions under paragraph 10, which were updated and modified with time and as per requirements. These conditions therein act 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.
18. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the first Scheme are reproduced hereunder:-
19. With subsequent amendments and modifications in the successive years, the Scheme ultimately provided for the following eligibility criteria for allotment of alternate plot:-
20. 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:-
21. The same have also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Ranjeet Singh vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10794, wherein it was observed as under:-
22. The abovementioned conditions, read with the directions regarding the said conditions laid by the Division Benches of this Court, indicate that there is a prescribed period for filing an application for allotment of alternative plot which operates from the date of the Award made in lieu of acquisition till the expiry of one year thereafter. In the instant matter, the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest failed to comply with the condition of applying for the allotment of alternative plot within one year from the date of the Award, which barred him from having his application accepted and processed and hence, there is no error in the finding of the respondent in the impugned order to this effect.
23. Further, the condition of holding a plot/residential accommodation or having certain land left even after acquisition being a bar for consideration of application of allotment of alternative plot is a 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.
24. The conditions stipulated in this matter have stemmed from the Scheme of 1961 and its subsequent amendments and hence, have to be given foremost importance while making an application for allotment of alternative plot and while its consideration by the concerned authority.
25. Upon receiving and considering the application of the petitioner, the concerned department carried out the necessary inquiry to adjudicate upon the application of the applicant and upon such enquiry, by the report of Tehsildar, it was found that the entire land of the petitioners was not acquired and they had certain portion of land left with them in Lal Dora which made them ineligible for consideration for allotment of alternative plot. The petitioners were clearly not rendered landless after the land in question was acquired. As per the Scheme, and as per the interpretations of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned matter, it is found that as long as an applicant is left with a part of his land or owns an alternative accommodation, the fact whether the same is inside or outside village abadi area would be irrelevant.
26. 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. 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 beneficiaries 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. 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.
27. Since, the very purpose of the scheme for allotment of alternative plot is to provide for those who do not have any land left, residential or agricultural, subsequent to their land being acquired, and even the conditions laid under the Scheme provide for the ineligibility on account of ownership of a land, it is found that the case of the petitioners does not fulfil the eligibility criteria and hence, the applicant and the petitioners were rightly found not entitled to the alternative accommodation under the Scheme.
28. The application of the petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest was also rejected on the grounds of non-submission of requisite documents and non-appearance for personal hearings. It is evident from the impugned order that the concerned authority had issued a notice to the applicant to provide an opportunity of personal hearing in the matter on 24th October 2019 and 28th January 2021.
29. It is also evident that Notice dated 13th July 2018 was issued to the applicant to submit the requisite documents within the stipulated time. Public Notice dated 3rd October 2019 as well as 23rd December 2020 were also published in two dailies in Hindi and English to submit the requisite documents. However, as per the record, the documents were not submitted by the petitioner. The petitioners have not been able to prove their case for being considered for the allotment of alternate land because of the deficiencies and inaction on their part. The petitioners were granted opportunity on several occasions for submissions of requisite documents and personal hearing for their case being considered under the Scheme through personal notices as well as through public notice. However, the petitioners and even the applicant failed to appear before the authorities and submitting the requisite documents. Therefore, their application was rejected.
30. Keeping in view the entirety of the matter, the Scheme of 1961 and the conditions laid therein, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Division benches of this Court, and the contents of the impugned order and the observations as aforementioned, it is found that the communication no. F.33(29)/59/69/2011/L&B/alt/533 dated 28th January 2021 rejecting the application of the petitioners’ predecessor-ininterest does not suffer from any illegality, impropriety or error apparent on the face of record.
31. The petitioners and their predecessor-in-interest failed to approach the concerned authority within the stipulated time prescribed for applying for allotment of alternative plot, they were not rendered landless after acquisition and had land remaining in Lal Dora, and further, they failed to submit the requisite documents, in absence of which their rights and entitlement could not have been determined.
32. Therefore, in these circumstances, this Court does not find any cogent reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction and allow the prayers as made on behalf of the petitioners.
33. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed for being devoid of merit and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
34. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
JUDGE OCTOBER 17, 2022 Dy/ms