Full Text
Translation output
$-31 ..
IT" HIGH COURT OF DELHI KAJ^ESHDEVI ' , Petitioner
, ^ Througlr Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and
, IVIr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.;
•
IT" HIGH COURT OF DELHI KAJ^ESHDEVI ' , Petitioner
, ^ Througlr Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and
, IVIr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.;
•
VERSUS
GGVT OF NCT OF DELHI &ORS. .
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jam and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, , - Advs for L & B. Department.
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jam and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, , - Advs for L & B. Department.
CORAM*
HON'BLEMS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
0/„ 14.09.2016
File taken up today as 13.92016 was declaredholiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
15.04.2014. vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his'acquired land had been rejected. The - rejectionletterhadquotedthejudgmentofthe ApexCourtreported m nMi V- ^ .Smofe KoBwar decided on 14.09.2011 m^
C.A. No. 8289/2010 held that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitied,to allotment ofan alternate plot.
' Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. SubmissionisthatthetbtalTandacquu-ed inVillageDhoolsiras was 78 bigha and H biswas. 4bigha and .17 biswas of land- still remain unacquired. Since 73 bighaandl2 biswas was alone acquired
2016:DHC:8717 3^;
I
(out ofthe total land of 78 bigha and 11 T)iswas) and 4bigha and 17 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio ofthe aforenoted
0/„ 14.09.2016
File taken up today as 13.92016 was declaredholiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
15.04.2014. vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his'acquired land had been rejected. The - rejectionletterhadquotedthejudgmentofthe ApexCourtreported m nMi V- ^ .Smofe KoBwar decided on 14.09.2011 m^
C.A. No. 8289/2010 held that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitied,to allotment ofan alternate plot.
' Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. SubmissionisthatthetbtalTandacquu-ed inVillageDhoolsiras was 78 bigha and H biswas. 4bigha and .17 biswas of land- still remain unacquired. Since 73 bighaandl2 biswas was alone acquired
2016:DHC:8717 3^;
I
(out ofthe total land of 78 bigha and 11 T)iswas) and 4bigha and 17 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio ofthe aforenoted
ORDER
(Jni Sin^h Kanwar) would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was 78 bigha and 11 biswas. 73 bigha and 12 biswas was acquired;
4bigha and 17 biswas ofland was left with the petitioner.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced on 24.10.2002 i,e. post period 03.04.1986. As per the Policy of 03.04.1986 (relied upon by the petitioner) where the land of aperson which had been acquired was less than 1bigha, 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 1bigha, even in future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at alater 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 aPolicy and the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in
-the backdrop ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states thatthe Awards announced on or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1bigha, that person cannot be considered,for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 4 bigha and 17 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 thatthe 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 isto be annexed along with an application seeking f ' ah allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land of the petitioner hadnot been acquired. 4 bigha and 17 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar noted siipra 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. The Scheme thereforeprovided that onlya person whodoes not own a house/ residentialplot/flat willbe 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 of the 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. ndn
3?" 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. Dismissed.
ESDERMEETKA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was 78 bigha and 11 biswas. 73 bigha and 12 biswas was acquired;
4bigha and 17 biswas ofland was left with the petitioner.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced on 24.10.2002 i,e. post period 03.04.1986. As per the Policy of 03.04.1986 (relied upon by the petitioner) where the land of aperson which had been acquired was less than 1bigha, 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 1bigha, even in future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at alater 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 aPolicy and the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in
-the backdrop ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states thatthe Awards announced on or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1bigha, that person cannot be considered,for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 4 bigha and 17 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 thatthe 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 isto be annexed along with an application seeking f ' ah allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land of the petitioner hadnot been acquired. 4 bigha and 17 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar noted siipra 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. The Scheme thereforeprovided that onlya person whodoes not own a house/ residentialplot/flat willbe 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 of the 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. ndn
3?" 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. Dismissed.
ESDERMEETKA
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016