RAM KAUR v. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

94. Compensation of Rs.6,22,093/- was paid to the petitioner on 24.09.1993. He had an application, seeking allotment of an alternate 2016:DHC:8683 plot within the prescribed limit of one year i.e. in the year 1994. Record further evidences that the Tehsildar in reply to a query raised by the petitioner had sent a letter dated 02.07.2013 to the petitioner, Dwarka informing him about the status of the land in khasras NO. 195/29 and 195/30. It was stated that this land was in the extended abadi of village Kakrola. The submission of the petitioner on this score being that although admittedly he has land in khasra No. 195/29 (1 bigha and 3 biswas) as also in khasra No. 195/30 (1 bigha and 4 biswas) but this land falls within the extended abadi of village Kakrora and this balanced land would thus not disqualiFy for allotment in the scheme set up by the Government for rehabilitation. This submission is noted but is negatived. The stand of the Department in its counter affidavit is also to the effect that since the petitioner still had balance land left in khasras No. 195/29 & 195/30, the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot. This Court is of the view that the judgment of Jai Singh Kanwar (supra) is fully applicable to the facts in hand. Whether the land falls in the extended abadi of village Kakrola or not would be or little consequence as the object of the Policy has to be kept in mind before considering the prayer of the petitioner. The Recommending Committee had rightly noted that since the petitioner did have balance land left, he was not entitled to an alternate plot. Para 6 of the judgment of Jai Singh Kanwar is relevant in this context. It reads herein 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 any house or I 'VE plot, he should be allotted a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house / residential plot /flat will be entitled to apply." Since the entire land of the petitioner was not acquired; he still having balance land left; the object of the scheme being to provide succour to those persons whose land had been acquired in entirety and had no shelter left over their heads; the case of the petitioner clearly does not fall into this category.

4 The rejection letter in this backgroundJ suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any meril L. Dismiss d. INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 A