Full Text
Translation output
V
$-28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6953/2014
VIJAY PAL GODARA
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
$-28 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6953/2014
VIJAY PAL GODARA
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NOT OF DELHI & ANR..... Respondents Throiigh Ms. Deepika, Adv for GNCTD.
Ms. Urvi Kuthiala and Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Advs for DDA.
Ms. Urvi Kuthiala and Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Advs 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
15.04.2014 vide which his appHcation seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letterhad quoted thejudgment of the ApexCourt 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 of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitledto allotment of an alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. Submission is that the total land acquired in Village Dhoolsiras in different'khasras as mentioned in the petition was 73 bighas 12
2016:DHC:8712 biswas. 4 bighas and 19 biswas of land still remain unacquired.
Since 73 bighas 12 biswas of land was acquired (out of the total land of 78 bighas and 11 biswas) and 4 bighas and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted
14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
15.04.2014 vide which his appHcation seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letterhad quoted thejudgment of the ApexCourt 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 of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitledto allotment of an alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. Submission is that the total land acquired in Village Dhoolsiras in different'khasras as mentioned in the petition was 73 bighas 12
2016:DHC:8712 biswas. 4 bighas and 19 biswas of land still remain unacquired.
Since 73 bighas 12 biswas of land was acquired (out of the total land of 78 bighas and 11 biswas) and 4 bighas and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted
ORDER
Uai 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 was 78 bighas and 11 biswas. 73 bighas and 12 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/40"^ share in this total area of land.
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 of a 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 fiiture 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 of the Policy even otherwise negatives this stand of the Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to
Armexures 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 of this Policy. This Policy clearly statesthat the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less tlian 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioneris 4 bighas and 19 biswas. His argument that in future if his land is acquired, he would again not get the benefit of this Policy is an argument which holds no water as admittedly there is a Policy. It is also not,as if that 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 of the application form and the format of the affidavit which is to be annexed along with an application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Armexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bighas and 19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/40'^ share in this land. _The judgment ofJai Sinsh KdnwarmiQd supra would be fully applicable.
Para 6 ofthe judgment is relevant. 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 plot, he should be allotted a plot. TheScheme therefore provided that only a person who does notown a house / residentialplot/flat will be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe PoHcy (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 of the land; they did not have any house to live in. An
2r 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 without any merit. Dismissec
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in the aforenoted khasras in village Dhoolsiras was 78 bighas and 11 biswas. 73 bighas and 12 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/40"^ share in this total area of land.
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 of a 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 fiiture 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 of the Policy even otherwise negatives this stand of the Department and for this purpose, attention has been drawn to
Armexures 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 of this Policy. This Policy clearly statesthat the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less tlian 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioneris 4 bighas and 19 biswas. His argument that in future if his land is acquired, he would again not get the benefit of this Policy is an argument which holds no water as admittedly there is a Policy. It is also not,as if that 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 of the application form and the format of the affidavit which is to be annexed along with an application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Armexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bighas and 19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/40'^ share in this land. _The judgment ofJai Sinsh KdnwarmiQd supra would be fully applicable.
Para 6 ofthe judgment is relevant. 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 plot, he should be allotted a plot. TheScheme therefore provided that only a person who does notown a house / residentialplot/flat will be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe PoHcy (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 of the land; they did not have any house to live in. An
2r 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 without any merit. Dismissec
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J