Navin Goel v. Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

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. These petitions were, however, heard independently. W.P.(C) III59/20I7& Connected matters Page 5 of[8]

2. Illustratively, the facts in the first petition W.P. (C) 11159 of 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. 46-B(part of Khasra No. 28/7) situated at Harijan Basti, Sanjay Nagar, area of Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi 110083 as having lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) ofthe Act 2013.”

3. The facts as narrated in the petition are that the Gaon Sabha, Mangolpur Kalan allotted the land in question to the predecessor-in-interest under the

20 Point Programme. In the said programme every allottee was granted lease by issuing LR Form 37 in the year 1974. It is claimed that since then, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was in possession and right now, the Petitioner continues to remain 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 24‘‘’ October, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA), a copy of the declaration dated 20* July, 1966 under Section 6 of LAA as well as a copy of the Award dated 23''^' April, 1980. It also includes the communication dated 22"^ 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 “to the development department for allotment in favour of eligible allottees.” fV.P.(C) 11159/20I7& Connected matters Page 6 of[8]

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 an Agreement to Sell, dated 20^'' February, 1995. It is pointed out that the Gaon Sabha allotted 100 sq. yards towards Shyam Lai son of Matoo on this basis for 99 years vide letter dated 2"*^ July, 1974 for construction of residential house. The said Shyam Lai executed the Agreement to Sell in favour of one Ved Prakash in November, 1984. The said Ved Prakash executed the General Power ol: Attorney in favour of one Sh. Atma Ram Goel. However, how the Petitioner thereafter came in possession ofthe land in question is not clear.

6. It is pointed out that the allotment of the land in favour of Shyam Lai under the 20-Point Programme and Shyam Lai was not entitled to sell the property. It is categorically averred that “the sale of plots allotted under the 20-Point Programme is 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.” was

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 29^'' January, 1981.

8. The above counter affidavit was filed on 3'^ April, 2018 and till date no rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioners to contradict the above facts. A W.P.(C) 1J159/2017& Connected matters Page 7 of[8] -;/ separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Delhi Developmenv Authority (DDA) confirming that the lands in question were originall) allotted to landless persons on lease basis under the 20-Point Programme Enclosed with the affidavit ofthe DDA are stamped copies ofthe documents in terms of which the allotment was made.

9. The facts in each of the other petitions forming part of this batch is nc different. It is seen that in each case the original allotment was on lease basil for the limited period of 9 years and lor sums as little as Rs. 2 paisa pes ■ square yards per year. Cleaxdy the allottees who got the land on lease basi' for a limited tenure could not have translqrred ownership, title or any righ^; whatsoever to any subsequent ‘purchaser’. The very basis of the presen petitions has no sanctity in the eye of law as the Petitioners cannot claim an} right or title or interest to the respective lands claimed to be in thei' possession. Therefore, the question of granting reliefs prayed for by any o these petitions in terms of the 2013 Act does not arise. I-

10. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 3".lanuary 2018 stands vacated. The pending applications are also dismissed. V

S. MUl^LIDHAR, J