Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of order: 12th September, 2022
MAHABIR PRASAD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate (through VC)
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for
R-1 alongwith Mr. Sameer Vashisht, ASC (Civil) for GNCTD with Ms. Sanjana Nangia, Advocate
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
ORDER
1. The instant civil writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-
2. The entire agricultural land of the petitioner, ad-measuring 11 Bighas 17 Biswas in Khasra No. 16/18/2(2-03), 19/1 (3-18), 22/2 (3-15), 23/1 (2-01) in Village Mundka, Delhi was acquired by the respondent under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, vide award No.3/DCW/2005-06 dated 27th January 2006 and possession of the same was taken by the respondent on 20th January 2007.
3. The petitioner applied for allotment of alternative plot under the Scheme dated 2nd May 1961 for “Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi” (hereinafter “Scheme of 1961”) vide application dated 10th December 2017 which came to rejected by the respondent vide impugned Order F. No. 31(61)\23\2007\L&B\Alt\1652 dated 18th March 2020 on the ground that his entire land was not acquired.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said rejection order.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent has allotted the alternative plot to the farmers of Village Mundka, Delhi where the land of the petitioner also situates which was acquired by the Government of NCT/ Respondent. Hence, the petitioner is also entitled for the allotment of the alternative plot on the ground of parity.
6. It is submitted that the finding of the respondent that the entire agricultural land of the petitioner has not been acquired and the petitioner is still in possession of agriculture land is factually incorrect, without any basis or record. It is submitted that the entire agricultural land of the petitioner has been acquired by the respondent Government and no agricultural land of the petitioner is left unacquired. Hence, the ground taken by the respondent in the impugned order is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of the law.
7. Per Contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the respondent while rejecting the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot.
8. Reliance has also been placed upon Ranjeet Singh vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, LPA 173/2017 decided on 27th September 2017.
9. As per the report of the Halqa Patwari, the entire land of the petitioner was not acquired and hence, he was not rendered landless upon acquisition of his land. In light of the above finding, he was not eligible and entitled for allotment of alternative plot as per the Scheme of 1961. It is submitted that the instant petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
11. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Courts have the power to adjudicate upon an impugned order along with the power to entertain writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari. While adjudicating upon an impugned order, the scope of writ jurisdiction is narrowed to examining the contents of the order which is before the Court. Any consideration beyond assessment of the impugned order, including investigation into evidence and question of facts would amount to exceeding the jurisdiction. While examining the challenge to an impugned order, the Court has to limit itself to the consideration whether there is any illegality, irregularity, impropriety or error apparent on record. The law, as has been interpreted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, is clear that a High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction shall not appreciate evidence and must not interfere in the order impugned unless there is a gross illegality or error apparent on the face of record. Hence, this Court will also limit itself to the question of law and the contents of impugned order dated 18th March 2020. Now, it is deemed significant to examine the objective of introduction of the Scheme of 1961 and the provisions for alternate plot in lieu of acquisition.
12. 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 for Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi 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 Surender 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. 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”.
17. 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.
18. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18th March 2020 is reproduced hereunder:- “Whereas, the Scrutiny Committee had examined the case on the basis of available record and the government guidelines. In the matter, a report from concerned Halka Patwari was called and placed before the committee. As per the report of Halka Patwari the entire land of applicant was not acquired. Unacquired agriculture land was remaining in the name of Applicant. Whereas, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement in Civil Appeal No. 8289/2010, 8290/2010 of Delhi Development Authority Vis. 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 WP© no. 12306 /15 titled as Sunder Singh Mann V/s Govt. of NCT if 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 have become homeless or landless. In the instant case the applicant was not homeless or landless. In view of the Government Guidelines/Hon'ble Supreme Court order/Hon'ble High Court order mentioned above, documents/records placed on the file the Scrutiny Committee has decided not to recommend the case of Sh. Mahavir Parsad S/o Sh. Karan Singh and therefore, the recommendation or Scrutiny Committee and the record on file has been considered by the Recommendation Committee and it is decided to reject the case for allotment of alternative plot.”
19. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the respondent while passing the impugned order observed that the entire land of the petitioner was not acquired, as was reported by the Halqa Patwari. While the petitioner has challenged the ground taken by the concerned authority while rejecting their applications, he has failed to place on record any document or other pleading to show that their entire land was acquired and an Award to that effect was also announced. The question whether or not the entire land of the petitioners was acquired remains a disputed question of fact which, as discussed above, cannot be adjudicated upon under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The respondent while passing the order took into consideration the report of the most competent authority for the ground in consideration, which was the Halqa Patwari and relying upon his report passed the impugned order.
20. The Scheme provides for conditions under paragraph 10, 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.
21. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the Scheme are reproduced hereunder:-
22. 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:-
23. 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:-
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. 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 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. 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.
26. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that the concerned authority 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. 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.
27. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed since this Court does not find any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order F. NO. 31(61)\23\2007\L&B\Alt\1652 dated 18th March 2020.
28. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
JUDGE SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 dy/ms