Dinesh Jindal v. Delhi Development Authority

1. All these petitions arise from a common set of facts and seek similar reliefs and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Illustratively, the facts in the first petition W.P. (C) 11228/2017 are set out. The prayer in the said petition reads as under: “(a) declare the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the Petitioners falling in Plot No. A-61(part of Khasra No. 28/7) Sanjay Nagar, Mangol Pur kalan, Delhi-110085. as having lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013, and (b) pass such other orders or orders which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

3. The facts as narrated in the petition are that the Gram Sabha, Mangolpur Kalan has allotted the land in question to the predecessor in interest of the Petitioners under 20 Point Programme pursuant to a policy decision. Under the said policy decision, every allottee was granted lease by issuing LR Form 37 in the year 1974 and since then the predecessor or the Petitioner is in possession of the same. The Petitioner is in “peaceful possession till date”.

4. The certificate issued by the Gaon Sabha has been enclosed by the Petitioner along with the “true copies of the chain of documents”. This chain of documents is, in fact, a copy of the notification dated 24th October, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA), a copy of the declaration dated 20th July, 1966 under Section 6 of LAA as well as a copy of the Award dated 23rd April, 1980. It also includes the communication dated 22nd January, 1983 of the Lt. Governor, Delhi addressed to the Vice-Chairman, DDA stating that it had come to his notice that some of the lands so allotted under the 20-Point Programme had been taken over by the DDA and that the same should be returned “be returned to the Development Department for proper allotment to the eligible harijans/allottees.”

5. In response to the petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC (North West) stating that the Petitioner was not the original allottee but instead was a subsequent purchaser on the basis of a chain of GPA/Agreements. It is pointed out that the Gram Sabha allotted a plot of 100 square yards to one Dhing Ram S/o Chain Sukli on lease basis for 99 years vide letter dated 2.7.1974 for the purpose of construction of residential house. Dhing Ram executed a GPA dated 06.06.96 in favour of Ram Kumar Jindal and the petitioner stated to be the son of Ram Kumar Jindal has filed the present writ petition to the exclusion of the rights of the other legal heirs, if the said Ram Kumar Jindal had expired.

6. It is further pointed out that that the allotment being made under the 20 Point Program, the allottee Dhing Ram was not entitled to sell the said plot besides the fact that the Karan Singh did not derive any right to execute any document in favor of Ishwar Prakash through whom the petitioner has allegedly purchased the said plot. It is categorically averred that “the sale of plots allotted under the 20 point program was ab -initio void, the petitioner cannot derive any right, title or interest in the said plot nor can challenge the acquisition proceeding in the present writ petition.”

7. It is further submitted that as far as the land acquisition proceedings are concerned, the compensation was assessed in the name of the Gaon Sabha and was remitted to the Reference Court under Section 30-31 of Act, 1894 way back on 29th January, 1981.

8. The above counter affidavit was filed on 3rd April, 2018 and till date no rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioners to contradict the above facts. Counter affidavit has not been filed by LAC in 11607/2017. DDA has not filed its counter affidavit in any of the petitions.

9. Pertinently, the fact situation in the present matter is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Navin Goel v. DDA & Ors. in W.P. (C) NO. 11159/2017. The facts in each of the other petitions forming part of this batch is no different. It is seen that in each case the original allotment was on lease basis for the limited period of 9 years and for sums as little as Rs. 2 paisa per square yards per year. Clearly the allottees who got the land on lease basis for a limited tenure could not have transferred ownership, title or any right whatsoever to any subsequent „purchaser‟. The very basis of the present petitions has no sanctity in the eye of law as the Petitioners cannot claim any right or title or interest to the respective lands claimed to be in their possession. Therefore, the question of granting reliefs prayed for by any of these petitions in terms of the 2013 Act does not arise.

10. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders dated 18.12.2017 and 22.12.2017 stand vacated. The pending applications are also dismissed.

SANJEEV NARULA, J VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 nk