Land & Building Dept, GNCTD v. Kasturi

1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent in W.P.(C) 6175/2018, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 (Annexure A-1 memo to this appeal) whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the respondent (original petitioner) to present two more documents, viz., Aadhar Card as well as Identity Card (attested by the gazetted officer) before this appellant authority (original respondent) with costs of Rs.10,000/-, and it was further directed by the learned Single Judge that the application by the respondent (original petitioner) for getting an alternate plot, as per the policy floated by this appellant (original respondent) should be considered by this appellant in accordance with law.

2. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the plot in question, which was acquired, is ad measuring 15 bighas and 8 biswa. The plot in question was taken over in the year 1997 and compensation was paid in the year 2008.

3. Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the application for an alternate plot was preferred by the original petitioner in the year 2008 and a letter was written by this appellant to the respondent (original petitioner) on 2nd August, 2016 (Annexure P-6), and another letter, dated 15th November, 2016 (Annexure P-9 to the memo of this appeal), was written as well, to provide certain documents, so that the application preferred by the respondent for getting an alternate plot could be appreciated by this appellant in accordance with the Allotment of Alternative Land Policy, 1961. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that these documents were not supplied by the respondent, hence, her application was rejected vide order dated 27th January, 2017 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this appeal). Counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that if the respondent has got more than one house within Delhi or outside Delhi, the respondent cannot be allotted any plot. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 14th September, 2011, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No.8289/2010, titled Delhi Development Authority vs. Jai Singh Kanwar & Ors.

4. Having heard the counsel for appellant and looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal, mainly for the following reasons:

(i) It appears from the facts of the case that the possession of the plot in question was taken over in the year 1997, and compensation was paid in the year 2008, as submitted by the counsel for appellant.

(ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant

(original respondent) had floated a policy, viz., Allotment of Alternative Land Policy, 1961. As per this policy, over and above compensation, an alternate plot ought to be given to this appellant or to the person whose land has been acquired.

(iii) Whenever any benevolent policy is sought to be interpreted, legal hurdles are brought up by this appellant, especially when the land was acquired by this appellant and when the person losing the land is a widow or an illiterate person or downtrodden persons.

(iv) In the facts of the present case, it further appears that without any delay, the respondent (original petitioner) had preferred an application for the allotment of an alternate plot in the year 2008 and the communications of this appellant requiring the presentation of certain documents were dated 2nd August, 2016 (Annexure P-6) and 15th November, 2016 (Annexure P-9 to the memo of this appeal). These documents have been supplied by the respondent (original petitioner) as stated in the judgment and order dated 29.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 6175/2018. Para 2 of the said judgment reads as under:

(v) It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant further demanded, during the course of arguments, two more documents, viz.: (a) Aadhar Card; (b) Identity Card

(vi) It further appears from the facts of the case that the learned

Single Judge has imposed a cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid by the respondent, and the two documents – Aadhar Card and Identity Card were permitted to be presented by the respondent (original petitioner) before this appellant, so that her application for the allotment of an alternate plot can be appreciated by this appellant according to policy floated by this appellant.

(vii) Nowhere has it been denied by this appellant that when the writ petition was filed by the respondent, not a single document was supplied by the respondent. It appears that the application was preferred by the respondent (original petitioner) in the year 2008 – immediately after the compensation for the acquired land was paid and it was in consonance with the policy floated by this appellant, viz., Allotment of Alternative Land Policy,

1961. Whenever, for any land loser, a benevolent policy is floated by the State authorities, it ought to be kept in mind by such State authorities that the land losers must be given proper guidance, and immediately after they prefer an application, there should have been a communication by the State authorities to provide further documents. However, according to the facts of the present case, the application was preferred in the year 2008 and this appellant started communication after eight long years. No prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the order of the learned Single Judge, especially by directions to accept the Aadhar Card and Identity Card of the respondent and to decide the application of the respondent for the allotment of an alternate plot, in accordance with law and the policy floated by this appellant.