Full Text
Translation output
$-19 HIGH COURT OF DELHI W.P.(C)5702/201,4& C.M.No.14080/2014
HARI SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna,Advocates.
HARI SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna,Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCIOF DELHI& ORS.
Respondents
Through , Ms.Deepika,Adv for GNCTD.
Mr.V.C.Jha and Mr. Jayendra, Advocates for DDA.
Respondents
Through , Ms.Deepika,Adv for GNCTD.
Mr.V.C.Jha and Mr. Jayendra, Advocates for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday.
The petitioner .is aggrieved by the communication dated
14.3.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment ofan alternate plot in lieu ofhis acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday.
The petitioner .is aggrieved by the communication dated
14.3.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment ofan alternate plot in lieu ofhis acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
ORDER
of the Apex Court reported in Delhi
Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No.8289/2010 held that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired,he was not entitled to allotment ofan alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.l has supported this stand. Submission oflearned counsel for respondent no.l is that the
Committee observed that as per the available record out of78 bighas
11 biswas, 73 bighas and 12 biswas has been acquired. Therefore
2016:DHC:8708 ,th remaining land is 4 bighas 19 biswas. Petitioner is the owner of 1/8 share in the remaining land.. Even in the said remaining land there is
^ a plot on 3 bighas and 18 biswas land falling under the Khasra
No.226. The agriculture land which is remained under Khasra
No.6/26 is 9 biswas. Learned counsel for respondent no.l submits that the ratio ofthe aforenoted judgment(Jai Sinsh Kanwar)would apply. -
Record substantiates the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no.l. The petitioner has himselfin his petition stated that he is the owner of 1/8^^ share in 78 bighas and 11 biswas ofland
(in different khasras as mentioned in the petition)in revenue estate of
Village Dhoolssiras,New Delhi;outof78 bighas 1Ibiswas,73 bighas
12 biswas ofland has been acquired;the balance land left with him is
, 4 bighas 19 biswas. The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period 03.04.1986 i.e. on 24.10.2002. As per the Policy of
03.04.1986(relied upon by the petitioner)where the land ofa person which had been acquired was less than 1 bigha,he was not entitled to an alternate plot. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the land left with the petitioner being less than 1 bigha,even in future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point of time. His additional submission is that the reading ofthe Policy even otherwise negatives this stand ofthe Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to Annexures A-1 and A-2 appended along with the said Policy.
This Court is not in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly,there is a Policy and the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in the backdrop ofthis Policy. ThisPolicy clearly states thatthe Awards announced on or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 4 bighas 19 biswas. His argument that in future ifhis land is acquired, he would again not getthe benefit ofthis Policy is an argument which holds no water as admittedly there is a Policy. It is also not as ifthat the Policy is under challenge. This argument based on contingent factors has no merit.
Annexures A-1 and A-2 also do not support the submission of the petitioner(a specimen ofthe application form and the format of the affidavit which is td be annexed along with an application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is thatthe entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bighas 19 biswas ofland still remained unacquired.
The judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar noted supra would be fully applicable.
Para6ofthejudgmentis relevant; It reads herein as under:-
"The object ofthe Scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and he is left without any house or plot, he should be allotted aplot. The Scheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does notown a house/residentialplot/ flat will be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe Policy(whether old policy ofthe year 1961 or the new policy of the year 1986) was to provide succour to those persons who were left completely landless/homeless on the acquisition ofthe land; they did not have any house to live in. An alternate plot was envisaged for such persons whose land had been acquired in its complete entirety and they did not have any shelter.
Those who had alternate covers i.e. roofs over their heads, were not entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is withoutany merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn
Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No.8289/2010 held that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired,he was not entitled to allotment ofan alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.l has supported this stand. Submission oflearned counsel for respondent no.l is that the
Committee observed that as per the available record out of78 bighas
11 biswas, 73 bighas and 12 biswas has been acquired. Therefore
2016:DHC:8708 ,th remaining land is 4 bighas 19 biswas. Petitioner is the owner of 1/8 share in the remaining land.. Even in the said remaining land there is
^ a plot on 3 bighas and 18 biswas land falling under the Khasra
No.226. The agriculture land which is remained under Khasra
No.6/26 is 9 biswas. Learned counsel for respondent no.l submits that the ratio ofthe aforenoted judgment(Jai Sinsh Kanwar)would apply. -
Record substantiates the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no.l. The petitioner has himselfin his petition stated that he is the owner of 1/8^^ share in 78 bighas and 11 biswas ofland
(in different khasras as mentioned in the petition)in revenue estate of
Village Dhoolssiras,New Delhi;outof78 bighas 1Ibiswas,73 bighas
12 biswas ofland has been acquired;the balance land left with him is
, 4 bighas 19 biswas. The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period 03.04.1986 i.e. on 24.10.2002. As per the Policy of
03.04.1986(relied upon by the petitioner)where the land ofa person which had been acquired was less than 1 bigha,he was not entitled to an alternate plot. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the land left with the petitioner being less than 1 bigha,even in future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point of time. His additional submission is that the reading ofthe Policy even otherwise negatives this stand ofthe Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to Annexures A-1 and A-2 appended along with the said Policy.
This Court is not in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly,there is a Policy and the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in the backdrop ofthis Policy. ThisPolicy clearly states thatthe Awards announced on or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 4 bighas 19 biswas. His argument that in future ifhis land is acquired, he would again not getthe benefit ofthis Policy is an argument which holds no water as admittedly there is a Policy. It is also not as ifthat the Policy is under challenge. This argument based on contingent factors has no merit.
Annexures A-1 and A-2 also do not support the submission of the petitioner(a specimen ofthe application form and the format of the affidavit which is td be annexed along with an application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is thatthe entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bighas 19 biswas ofland still remained unacquired.
The judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar noted supra would be fully applicable.
Para6ofthejudgmentis relevant; It reads herein as under:-
"The object ofthe Scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and he is left without any house or plot, he should be allotted aplot. The Scheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does notown a house/residentialplot/ flat will be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe Policy(whether old policy ofthe year 1961 or the new policy of the year 1986) was to provide succour to those persons who were left completely landless/homeless on the acquisition ofthe land; they did not have any house to live in. An alternate plot was envisaged for such persons whose land had been acquired in its complete entirety and they did not have any shelter.
Those who had alternate covers i.e. roofs over their heads, were not entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is withoutany merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn