Full Text
Translation output
$-15 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5652/2014 & C.M.Nos. 13996-97/2014
RAJINDER SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 5652/2014 & C.M.Nos. 13996-97/2014
RAJINDER SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu .Tain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B. Department.
Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu .Tain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs 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
15.04.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quotedthe
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 application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quotedthe
ORDER
of the Apex Court reported in
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2015 in
C.A. No. 8289/2010 holding that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Contention is that the judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar has been wrongly applied. The Scheme does not envisage a situation that until and unless the entire land of the party has been acquired, he is not entitled to be considered for an alternate plot. Additional submission is that the alternate plots had been granted to other persons which is
2016:DHC:8720 also discriminatory.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent states that the respondent received a report dated 24.8.2005 from the LAC which indicated that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 67 bighas 8 biswas of land, only 52 bighas and 3 biswas of land has been acquired. The land
(unacquired) left out is 15 bighas 5 biswas in which the petitioner had a 1/8^'' share. Thus the land ofthe petitioner not having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio of the aforenoted Judgment (Jai Singh
Kamvar) would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was 67 bighas and 8 biswas. 52 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired.
The remaining land is 15 bighas 5 biswas. The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/8"' share in this total area of land. Submission of the petitioner is that he has already sold his 1/8"' share out of this remaining land and is thus entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. This submission is wholly without merit. He having sold his balance land is not covered underthis Policy.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petitionhad been granted an alternate plot again does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as admittedly even if a plot was considered in favour of the relative of the petitioner, it was prior to the judgment of
Jai Sinsh Kamvar pronounced on 14.09.2011. This submission is admitted and has not been controverted.
The admitted fact thus is that the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired. The balance land left v/ith the petitioner was
<%
•le'
15 bighas 5 biswas. The petitioner had l/S"^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Singh 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 only a person who does not own a house / residentialplot / flat will be entitled to apply."
The object of the Policy (whether old policy of the 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 entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2015 in
C.A. No. 8289/2010 holding that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Contention is that the judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar has been wrongly applied. The Scheme does not envisage a situation that until and unless the entire land of the party has been acquired, he is not entitled to be considered for an alternate plot. Additional submission is that the alternate plots had been granted to other persons which is
2016:DHC:8720 also discriminatory.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent states that the respondent received a report dated 24.8.2005 from the LAC which indicated that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 67 bighas 8 biswas of land, only 52 bighas and 3 biswas of land has been acquired. The land
(unacquired) left out is 15 bighas 5 biswas in which the petitioner had a 1/8^'' share. Thus the land ofthe petitioner not having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio of the aforenoted Judgment (Jai Singh
Kamvar) would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was 67 bighas and 8 biswas. 52 bighas and 2 biswas was acquired.
The remaining land is 15 bighas 5 biswas. The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/8"' share in this total area of land. Submission of the petitioner is that he has already sold his 1/8"' share out of this remaining land and is thus entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. This submission is wholly without merit. He having sold his balance land is not covered underthis Policy.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petitionhad been granted an alternate plot again does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as admittedly even if a plot was considered in favour of the relative of the petitioner, it was prior to the judgment of
Jai Sinsh Kamvar pronounced on 14.09.2011. This submission is admitted and has not been controverted.
The admitted fact thus is that the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired. The balance land left v/ith the petitioner was
<%
•le'
15 bighas 5 biswas. The petitioner had l/S"^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Singh 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 only a person who does not own a house / residentialplot / flat will be entitled to apply."
The object of the Policy (whether old policy of the 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 entitled to an alternate plot.
The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J