Laxmi Narain Tyagi v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 03.10.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 1840/2018 titled “Laxmi Narain Tyagi (deceased through legal heirs) vs. Delhi Development Authority”, wherein the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellant had no vested legal right to be allotted alternative plots on acquisition of his land by the government, as he had been paid compensation and the scheme for allotment of alternative plot was based on fulfilment of certain terms and conditions which were not met by the appellant.

2. It is the case of the appellant that in 1961, the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “DDA”) notified the Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi Scheme (hereinafter referred to as “1961 Scheme”). Under the said scheme, (i) persons, whose lands were acquired, were entitled to be provided alternative plots (ii) each such person would be offered three chances for allotment of an alternative plot, if the acquisition had taken place prior to 3rd April, 1986 and (iii) where the acquired land was over 10 Bighas in area, the owner of the land was entitled to be allotted a plot admeasuring 400 sq. yards.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant’s agricultural land in Village Bodella was acquired by the government in the year 1968 and compensation was paid. In 1975, the appellant applied to the Land & Building Department (hereinafter referred to as “L&B Department”), GNCTD, for recommending allotment of an alternative plot from Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “DDA”) under the government policy. In 1978, the respondent/DDA offered a plot in Vikaspuri, which the appellant was unable to purchase at the time due to financial constraints. It is the case of the appellant that he applied for its cancellation with the request that he may be offered an alternative plot later on, however, his name was not placed in the waiting list. His grievance is that despite repeated representations from 1982 onwards, no further allotment was made.

4. Subsequently, the appellant alleged that similarly placed persons received alternate plots, while his case remained ignored, culminating in a policy resolution dated 24.08.2004 reducing the number of allotment chances to two. The appellant later learnt that his file had been lost, and despite various correspondences, including an office note dated 19.05.2017 suggesting a fresh draw of lots, no action was taken. It is the further case of the appellant that in February, 2018, a public notice by the respondent/DDA excluded his name from the list of those eligible for alternate plots. Eventually, the underlying writ petition was filed, and notice was issued on 26.02.2018 to the respondent/DDA.

5. Vide the impugned order dated 03.10.2024, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had no vested legal right to be allotted alternative plots on acquisition of his land by the government, as he had been paid compensation and the scheme for conditions which were not met by the appellant.

6. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the respondent/DDA under the original policy had stated that the persons under the 1961 scheme would be offered three chances for allotment of an alternative plot if the acquisition had taken place prior to 03.04.1981, subsequently in the year 2004 had reduced such offer to only two times.

7. Alluding to the letter dated 30.03.1978 written by the appellant to the respondent/DDA, learned senior counsel submits that by virtue of the said letter the appellant had clearly indicated that he was not in a financial position to pay for the plot and had intimated that as and when his financial situation improves, he would request for an alternate allotment. He states that by letter dated 23.05.1978, the respondent/DDA communicated to the appellant that his letter has been accepted unequivocally. He emphasizes that while accepting the letter, though the respondent/DDA had conveyed that it was recalling the allotment, however, did not convey that it was cancelling the same.

8. While referring to the letter dated 05.07.1982 written by the appellant to the respondent/DDA, he submits that in terms of the 1961 Scheme the appellant was entitled to three chances for allotment of an alternative plot and having surrendered the first one vide letter dated 30.03.1978, was still left with two more chances. According to him, the second chance was exercised by the appellant vide the communication dated 05.07.1982. To the said communication, he submits that respondent/DDA vide letter dated 10.11.1982 communicated that since the appellant failed to deposit 25% of the premium for allotment of an alternative plot, such allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 23.05.1978. He contends that the said communication was a unilateral action ignoring the 1961 Scheme whereunder the allottees were granted three opportunities for opting for alternative plots.

9. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel drew attention of this Court to the decision taken by the respondent/DDA in the year 2004 regarding regularization of delay under Alternative Allotment Scheme. He submits that on a reconsideration of the grievances faced by allottees like the appellant and also after considering that the offer granted earlier was too liberal and was granting undue benefit to the allottees, it was decided that instead of three chances, only two chances would be offered. He states that since the appellant had not exhausted his second chance, the appellant was entitled to seek an allotment of an alternate plot as per the original scheme.

10. He further submitted that on a representation submitted by the appellant, the respondent/DDA vide its letter dated 17.11.2014 had communicated the same to the L&B Department of the GNCT of Delhi for reconsideration of the allotment of alternative plot to the appellant. He states that the L&B Department vide the communication dated 26.05.2016 informed the respondent/DDA that the case of the appellant was already considered previously and that it cannot reconsider the same again and again since the failure to deposit 25% of the premium as demanded, was not under the purview of the said department. He states that despite the communication dated 26.05.2016 of the L&B Department, the respondent/DDA did not initiate any action to allot an alternative plot under the 1961 Scheme as amended in the year 2004-2005. It was the said inaction which prompted the appellant to file the underlying writ petition.

11. Mr. Rao contends that having regard to the fact that the original 1961 Scheme offered three chances which was reduced to two chances under the resolution of the Standing Committee dated 24.08.2024, coupled with the fact that the appellant had only exhausted chance only once, he still had atleast one more chance for allotment of alternate plot of land.

12. In order to substantiate and support the aforesaid submission, Mr. Rao forcefully emphasizes that the allotment of alternate plot was made a part of 1961 Scheme predicated on the compulsory acquisition of land belonging to the appellant under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He stoutly contends that though compensation may have been given for such acquisition but having regard to the fact that the respondent/DDA had not only offered an alternate plot of land to the appellant, but also had conferred three chances to each of such allottee, the appellant was entitled in law and in fact to atleast one more chance even if regard is had to the decision taken by the DDA on 24.08.2004.

13. He emphasized that the letter dated 30.03.1978 of the appellant did not seek revocation or cancellation of the allotment of the alternate plot but only surrender keeping in view the financial constraints. In other words, he contends that the appellant was and is entitled to atleast one more chance for alternate plot of land which the respondent/DDA cannot deny keeping in view the fact that the said policy thereafter has not been rescinded till date. He submits that the learned Single Judge did not consider this crucial aspect and has erroneously dismissed the underlying writ petition. He submits that the appellant had been waiting for his lawful entitlement since the year 1978 which has been unilaterally denied by the respondent/DDA.

14. Per contra, Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DDA submits that the appellant has deliberately not impleaded the L&B Department, GNCTD as party to the present proceedings. Further, the appellant was allotted a plot on 14.03.1978, but the allotment was cancelled on 23.05.1978 due to non-payment of the premium, and the case was closed. He further submits that the appellant’s application for an alternate plot was rejected by the DDA on 10.11.1982, and this rejection has not been challenged by the appellant till date. He also submits that the subsequent rejection of the appellant's representation dated 25.01.1984 vide a letter dated 26.04.1984 by the DDA, has also remained unchallenged.

15. He submits that the present petition, filed after 40 years, is barred by delay and laches. He further stated that a representation received in August 2014 was not considered, as the case had been closed in 1978; and the appellant is not entitled to a second chance for allotment, as the plot was cancelled for non-payment, and not surrendered. Accordingly, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and prays that the same be dismissed.