Full Text
Translation output
u $-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)6418/2014& C.M.No.15413/2014
RAJ SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep KJianna,Advocates.
W.P.(C)6418/2014& C.M.No.15413/2014
RAJ SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep KJianna,Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NOT OF DELHI& ANR.
Respondents
Through Ms.Deepika,Adv for GNCTD.
Respondents
Through Ms.Deepika,Adv for GNCTD.
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
29.01.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted thejudgment ofthe Apex Courtreported 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.
Submission oflearned counsel for the respondent no.1 is that in
Village Dhoolsiras out of40 bighas 18 biswas ofland 35 bighas 02 biswas has been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas ofland still remain unacquired. Since 35 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out of
2016:DHC:8711 the total land of40 bighas and 18 biswas)and 5 bighas and 16 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio ofthe aforenoted
14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
29.01.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted thejudgment ofthe Apex Courtreported 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.
Submission oflearned counsel for the respondent no.1 is that in
Village Dhoolsiras out of40 bighas 18 biswas ofland 35 bighas 02 biswas has been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas ofland still remain unacquired. Since 35 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out of
2016:DHC:8711 the total land of40 bighas and 18 biswas)and 5 bighas and 16 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio ofthe aforenoted
ORDER
(Jai
Sinsh Kanwar)would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in the aforenoted khasras in village Dhoolsiras was40 bighas and 18 biswas.35 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of th
1/18 share in this total area ofland.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period
03.04.1986. 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 ofthis Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point oftime. His additional submission is that the reading ofthe Policy even otherwise negatives this stand of the Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to
Annexures A-1 and A-2appended 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 statesthatthe Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha,that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot.The land left with the petitioner is 5 bighas 16 biswas. His argumentthatin future ifhis land is acquired, he would again notgetthe benefitofthisPolicy isan argumentwhich holds no water as admittedly there is aPolicy. Itis 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 supportthe submission of the petitioner(a specimen ofthe application form and the format of the affidavitwhich isto 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 factis thatthe entire land ofthe petitionerhad not been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/18"" share in this land. The judgmentofJaiSinshKanwarnoted supra would be fully applicable.
Para6 ofthejudgmentis 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
Sinsh Kanwar)would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in the aforenoted khasras in village Dhoolsiras was40 bighas and 18 biswas.35 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of th
1/18 share in this total area ofland.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period
03.04.1986. 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 ofthis Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point oftime. His additional submission is that the reading ofthe Policy even otherwise negatives this stand of the Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to
Annexures A-1 and A-2appended 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 statesthatthe Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha,that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot.The land left with the petitioner is 5 bighas 16 biswas. His argumentthatin future ifhis land is acquired, he would again notgetthe benefitofthisPolicy isan argumentwhich holds no water as admittedly there is aPolicy. Itis 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 supportthe submission of the petitioner(a specimen ofthe application form and the format of the affidavitwhich isto 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 factis thatthe entire land ofthe petitionerhad not been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/18"" share in this land. The judgmentofJaiSinshKanwarnoted supra would be fully applicable.
Para6 ofthejudgmentis 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