Full Text
Translation output
' V
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
, ,4- ,W.P.(C)4114/2013 , - / , • SATYAVATI & ORS
•V. , \ .....Petitioners
, , Through .Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocate, : , • 'V • "versus ' ' . • '
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. . Respondents
. Through Ms.Deepika, Advocate
' • CORAM: ^ ^ ' ; . ' - •
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 ' File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday:
' Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection letter dated 11.01.2013
" wherein his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot was rejected for two reasons; It was stated that the award qua this land
(Village Nangli, Rajapur) was announced on 19.02.1986 for a total
.area 7l bighas and 11 biswas. 3bighas andT7 biswas still remained un-acquired. Since the petitioner (Chanderwati widow ofAsha Ram) still had land with her which was evident from the Khatoni her case was rejected. Petitioner is aggrieved by this finding.
Counter affidavithakbeen filed by the respondent.
I . ; Record shows that Asha Ram was the original recorded owner ofthe land in question. This petition has been filed by his widow and
.1 two sons, The total land oy^ned by Asha Ram was' 71 bighas and 1
. biswa. The letter of rejection noting that the petitioner had land left
2016:DHC:8681 with her is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that
3 bigha's and 17 biswas of land shall remain in the name of the original recorded owner namely Asha Ram; The
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
, ,4- ,W.P.(C)4114/2013 , - / , • SATYAVATI & ORS
•V. , \ .....Petitioners
, , Through .Mr.N.S.Dalai, Advocate, : , • 'V • "versus ' ' . • '
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR. . Respondents
. Through Ms.Deepika, Advocate
' • CORAM: ^ ^ ' ; . ' - •
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 ' File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday:
' Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection letter dated 11.01.2013
" wherein his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot was rejected for two reasons; It was stated that the award qua this land
(Village Nangli, Rajapur) was announced on 19.02.1986 for a total
.area 7l bighas and 11 biswas. 3bighas andT7 biswas still remained un-acquired. Since the petitioner (Chanderwati widow ofAsha Ram) still had land with her which was evident from the Khatoni her case was rejected. Petitioner is aggrieved by this finding.
Counter affidavithakbeen filed by the respondent.
I . ; Record shows that Asha Ram was the original recorded owner ofthe land in question. This petition has been filed by his widow and
.1 two sons, The total land oy^ned by Asha Ram was' 71 bighas and 1
. biswa. The letter of rejection noting that the petitioner had land left
2016:DHC:8681 with her is not in dispute. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that
3 bigha's and 17 biswas of land shall remain in the name of the original recorded owner namely Asha Ram; The
ORDER
of the
Apex Court in CA No.8289/2010 titled Delhi Administration Vs. Jai
Sinsh Kanwar (decided on 14.09.2011) clearly states that unless and until the land of a party is not acquired in its "entirety" the case of such a party cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot.
Para 6 ofthe said judgment is relevant and it reads as under:
"the object of the Scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and he is left without ariy house or plot, he should be allotted a plot, TheScheme therefore provided that onlya person whodoes not owna house/ residentialplot/flat will be
-entitled'to apply."- • f ^
, ' The ratio of this judgment is fully applicable. Another
. subniission has been made by the petitioner that the Recommending
Body had in its check memo noted that the petitioner was entitled for,, consideration of allotment of 2S0 sq. yards of land,and the said check memo has been placed on record. Vehement submission on this score
- being if the case of the petitioner had been considered at the first instance for allotment of ah alfemafe plot >yhy he was rejected later i.e. after more than one decade has riotbeen explained.
This check memo (annexure I) is undated but the avermerifs in the petition disclose that after the receipt of the application (dated
20.11.1987) of the petitioner a check menio was prepared for the
,purposes ,of cqmmitting the case of-the petitioner. Learned courisel for the respondent rightly submits that this check memo is only a
•V proposal for recomrtiendation of a plot; this proposal was put up before the Recommending Body who had declined it in terms of the aforenoted rejection letter dated 11.01.2013. This was the only first stage wherein the. documents relied upon by a party collated and put up before fhe Recommending Body; this did not create any right in favour ofthe party. ^This argument is noteworthy; it has full force. A proposal by itselfdoes not create any rightin favour of a party. The, rejection letter had noted that the case of the petitioner cannpt be considered as admittedly she had balance land left with her.
Judgment ofJai SinshKanwar fsupraj is fully applicable.
Whether this remaining lahd was in a urban area or not would
' also not, make a difference to the^object ofthe policy which at the cost, of repetition is a policy whichhas beennotified by the Government to
, rehabilitate those persons whose agricultural land has been acquired in its entirety, and to give,succour ./relief to such persons who had become completely homeless orlandless.
Petitioners do not fall in this category. Rejection letter dated
11.01.2013 does not suffer from any infirmity, '^here is no merit in
^ this petition. It is dismissed. .
SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Apex Court in CA No.8289/2010 titled Delhi Administration Vs. Jai
Sinsh Kanwar (decided on 14.09.2011) clearly states that unless and until the land of a party is not acquired in its "entirety" the case of such a party cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot.
Para 6 ofthe said judgment is relevant and it reads as under:
"the object of the Scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and he is left without ariy house or plot, he should be allotted a plot, TheScheme therefore provided that onlya person whodoes not owna house/ residentialplot/flat will be
-entitled'to apply."- • f ^
, ' The ratio of this judgment is fully applicable. Another
. subniission has been made by the petitioner that the Recommending
Body had in its check memo noted that the petitioner was entitled for,, consideration of allotment of 2S0 sq. yards of land,and the said check memo has been placed on record. Vehement submission on this score
- being if the case of the petitioner had been considered at the first instance for allotment of ah alfemafe plot >yhy he was rejected later i.e. after more than one decade has riotbeen explained.
This check memo (annexure I) is undated but the avermerifs in the petition disclose that after the receipt of the application (dated
20.11.1987) of the petitioner a check menio was prepared for the
,purposes ,of cqmmitting the case of-the petitioner. Learned courisel for the respondent rightly submits that this check memo is only a
•V proposal for recomrtiendation of a plot; this proposal was put up before the Recommending Body who had declined it in terms of the aforenoted rejection letter dated 11.01.2013. This was the only first stage wherein the. documents relied upon by a party collated and put up before fhe Recommending Body; this did not create any right in favour ofthe party. ^This argument is noteworthy; it has full force. A proposal by itselfdoes not create any rightin favour of a party. The, rejection letter had noted that the case of the petitioner cannpt be considered as admittedly she had balance land left with her.
Judgment ofJai SinshKanwar fsupraj is fully applicable.
Whether this remaining lahd was in a urban area or not would
' also not, make a difference to the^object ofthe policy which at the cost, of repetition is a policy whichhas beennotified by the Government to
, rehabilitate those persons whose agricultural land has been acquired in its entirety, and to give,succour ./relief to such persons who had become completely homeless orlandless.
Petitioners do not fall in this category. Rejection letter dated
11.01.2013 does not suffer from any infirmity, '^here is no merit in
^ this petition. It is dismissed. .
SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J