Full Text
Translation output
u $-24 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 6440/2014& C.M .No.15450/2014
ANITA Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 6440/2014& C.M .No.15450/2014
ANITA Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS Respondents
Through Mr. B. Mahapatra, Adv for L& B Department.
Through Mr. B. Mahapatra, Adv for L& B Department.
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 the
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 the
ORDER
ofthe Apex Court reported in v-,^ Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sin2h 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 entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. Submissionis that the total land acquired in VillageDhoolsiras in different khasras as mentioned in the petition was 35 bighas 2 biswas. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired.
Since 35 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out ofthe total land of
40 bighas and 18 biswas) and 5 bighas and 16 biswas still remained
2016:DHC:8718 unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment 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 40 bighas and 18 biswas. 35 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of
1/18^^ 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 ofthis 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 ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states that the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bighas, that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 5 bighas 16 biswas. His argument that in fiiture ifhis land is acquired. sr hewould again not get the benefit ofthis 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 Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/18^*^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Sinsh Kanwar noted 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. The Scheme therefore provided that onlya person whodoes not owna 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 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.
Those who had alternate covers i.e. roofs over their heads, were not
V entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEETKAUR,J
C.A. No. 8289/2010 held that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this stand. Submissionis that the total land acquired in VillageDhoolsiras in different khasras as mentioned in the petition was 35 bighas 2 biswas. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired.
Since 35 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out ofthe total land of
40 bighas and 18 biswas) and 5 bighas and 16 biswas still remained
2016:DHC:8718 unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment 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 40 bighas and 18 biswas. 35 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was owner to the extent of
1/18^^ 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 ofthis 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 ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states that the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bighas, that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 5 bighas 16 biswas. His argument that in fiiture ifhis land is acquired. sr hewould again not get the benefit ofthis 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 Annexures have been quoted.
The admitted fact is that the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired. 5 bighas and 16 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/18^*^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Sinsh Kanwar noted 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. The Scheme therefore provided that onlya person whodoes not owna 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 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.
Those who had alternate covers i.e. roofs over their heads, were not
V entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEETKAUR,J