Full Text
Translation output
V
>! $-10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9080/2014
RAJINDER PARSAD
Petitioner
Through Ms.Geeta Malhotra, Advocate.
>! $-10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 9080/2014
RAJINDER PARSAD
Petitioner
Through Ms.Geeta Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through Mr.Puneet Agrawal and Ms.Dalveer Kaur, Advocates.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Advocate for DDA.
Through Mr.Puneet Agrawal and Ms.Dalveer Kaur, Advocates.
Mr.Pawan Mathur, Advocate for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 Filetaken uptoday as 13.9.2016 was declared hoHday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his prayer for alternate allotment of a plot had been rejected vide letter dated
05.03.2014.
4,:
Counter affidavitis not on record. Copy ofthe counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits thatthe rejection was made for the reason that the petitioner still had land left with him and in view ofthe ratio ofthe
14.09.2016 Filetaken uptoday as 13.9.2016 was declared hoHday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his prayer for alternate allotment of a plot had been rejected vide letter dated
05.03.2014.
4,:
Counter affidavitis not on record. Copy ofthe counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent submits thatthe rejection was made for the reason that the petitioner still had land left with him and in view ofthe ratio ofthe
ORDER
of the Apex Court in CA No.8289/2010 titled Delhi Administration Vs.
Jai Sinsh Kanwar. since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired and landstill remained withthe petitioner, his case could not be considered for theallotment of an alternate plot.
2016:DHC:8721 Arguments have beenheard. Recordhas beenperused.
Record shows that in the instant case, the land of the petitioner situated in Village Nangli, Razapur was acquired vide Award
No.16/92-93 dated 19.06.1992. The petitioner had applied for an alternate plot on 24.11.1999. Submission is that some of the relatives of the^petitioner had already been granted an alternate plot but the case of the petitioner which was placed before the Recommending
Committee on 07.02.2014 hadrejected his case on the ground thathis entire land had not been acquired. The Recommending Committee had noted that out of 1749.02 bigha owned by the petitioner, 881.04 bigha hadbeen acquired and the balance hadnotbeen acquired and as such his case could not be considered for alternate plot. The ratio of the judgment in CA No.8289/2010 titled Delhi Administration V5. Jai
Singh Kanwar (delivered by the Apex Court on 14.09.2011) was applied.
The contention of the petitioner is that although admittedly the petitioner owns 1749.02 bigha of which 881.04 bigha had been
^acquired but since the other cousins of the petitioner namely Satish
Kumar and others (details given in para 10 of the petition) have been granted alternate plots, the petitioner's case has been discriminated upon and there is no reason for the same. The additional submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Policy of the
Government clearly stipulated only three conditions. Attention has been drawn to the Policy formulated by the Government for allotment of an alternate plot. Submission is that the condition of eligibility entailed only three conditions which were (a) that he must have been
J
>3 recorded owner prior to issue of notification; (b) he must have received compensation as an original owner and (c) he should not own a house/residential plot/flat in village Abadi in his name or in the name of his dependent and nor he should a member of any co operative housing society. Submission of the petitioner is thathe did not have any house of residential flat or plot in village Abadi or outside it. His case could not have been thrown out. Additional submission being that the judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar would not apply to the instant case as the facts ofthat case were different.
This argument has been refuted. On the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his relatives namely one Ajeet
Singh and others had been granted alternate plots, the submission of the respondent is that even presuming that any relative of the petitioner had beengranted an alternate plotthat would be priorto the ratio ofthe judgment pronouncedby the Apex Court on 14.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this submission of the respondent. Her submission is that the relatives of the petitioner who had been granted alternate plots were admittedly granted these alternate plots prior to the judgment dated 14.09.2011.
Record of the case of Satish Kumar, Raj Kumar, Mohan Singh
Chauhan, Jai Pal, Mohan Sigh Chauhan, Ajeet Singh and Anil Kumar shows that they had been considered for alternate plot prior in time to the judgment of Jai Sin^h Kanwar which was delivered on
14.09.2011. In the case ofJai Sinsh Kanwar. the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the policy for allotment of alternate plots and the eligibility criteria had in fact been noted by the Apex Court in the first page itself. The following eligibility criteria was noted by the
Apex Court as under:- "(a)he must have been recorded owner prior to issue ofnotification;
(b) he must have received compensation as an original owner and (c) he should not own a house/residentialplot/flat in village Abadi in his name or in the name ofhis dependent and nor he should a member of any co-operative housing society "
This judgment in para 6 had admittedly added:-
"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 a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house / residential plot / flat will be entitled to apply."
This ratio clearly states that it is only when the land of a person has been acquired in its entirety, can he be considered for residential plot.
A perusal of this judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar thus fortifies this
Court to hold that it is only if the land of a party is acquired in its entirety and he has no roof or home under which he can take shelter, can his case be considered for allotment of an alternate plot and not otherwise. Admittedly in this case out of 1749.02 bigha of land owned by the petitioner, only 881.04 bigha had been acquired. It is thus clear that the entire land of the petitioner not having been acquired, the question of him being considered for an alternate plot would not arise. It is not as if that the petitioner had been left homeless. It could not be imagined that in all this period of time i.e. from the year 1992, the petitioner has no roof or shelter.
Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Jai Sinsh Kanwar. since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired and landstill remained withthe petitioner, his case could not be considered for theallotment of an alternate plot.
2016:DHC:8721 Arguments have beenheard. Recordhas beenperused.
Record shows that in the instant case, the land of the petitioner situated in Village Nangli, Razapur was acquired vide Award
No.16/92-93 dated 19.06.1992. The petitioner had applied for an alternate plot on 24.11.1999. Submission is that some of the relatives of the^petitioner had already been granted an alternate plot but the case of the petitioner which was placed before the Recommending
Committee on 07.02.2014 hadrejected his case on the ground thathis entire land had not been acquired. The Recommending Committee had noted that out of 1749.02 bigha owned by the petitioner, 881.04 bigha hadbeen acquired and the balance hadnotbeen acquired and as such his case could not be considered for alternate plot. The ratio of the judgment in CA No.8289/2010 titled Delhi Administration V5. Jai
Singh Kanwar (delivered by the Apex Court on 14.09.2011) was applied.
The contention of the petitioner is that although admittedly the petitioner owns 1749.02 bigha of which 881.04 bigha had been
^acquired but since the other cousins of the petitioner namely Satish
Kumar and others (details given in para 10 of the petition) have been granted alternate plots, the petitioner's case has been discriminated upon and there is no reason for the same. The additional submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Policy of the
Government clearly stipulated only three conditions. Attention has been drawn to the Policy formulated by the Government for allotment of an alternate plot. Submission is that the condition of eligibility entailed only three conditions which were (a) that he must have been
J
>3 recorded owner prior to issue of notification; (b) he must have received compensation as an original owner and (c) he should not own a house/residential plot/flat in village Abadi in his name or in the name of his dependent and nor he should a member of any co operative housing society. Submission of the petitioner is thathe did not have any house of residential flat or plot in village Abadi or outside it. His case could not have been thrown out. Additional submission being that the judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar would not apply to the instant case as the facts ofthat case were different.
This argument has been refuted. On the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his relatives namely one Ajeet
Singh and others had been granted alternate plots, the submission of the respondent is that even presuming that any relative of the petitioner had beengranted an alternate plotthat would be priorto the ratio ofthe judgment pronouncedby the Apex Court on 14.09.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this submission of the respondent. Her submission is that the relatives of the petitioner who had been granted alternate plots were admittedly granted these alternate plots prior to the judgment dated 14.09.2011.
Record of the case of Satish Kumar, Raj Kumar, Mohan Singh
Chauhan, Jai Pal, Mohan Sigh Chauhan, Ajeet Singh and Anil Kumar shows that they had been considered for alternate plot prior in time to the judgment of Jai Sin^h Kanwar which was delivered on
14.09.2011. In the case ofJai Sinsh Kanwar. the Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the policy for allotment of alternate plots and the eligibility criteria had in fact been noted by the Apex Court in the first page itself. The following eligibility criteria was noted by the
Apex Court as under:- "(a)he must have been recorded owner prior to issue ofnotification;
(b) he must have received compensation as an original owner and (c) he should not own a house/residentialplot/flat in village Abadi in his name or in the name ofhis dependent and nor he should a member of any co-operative housing society "
This judgment in para 6 had admittedly added:-
"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 a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house / residential plot / flat will be entitled to apply."
This ratio clearly states that it is only when the land of a person has been acquired in its entirety, can he be considered for residential plot.
A perusal of this judgment of Jai Sinsh Kanwar thus fortifies this
Court to hold that it is only if the land of a party is acquired in its entirety and he has no roof or home under which he can take shelter, can his case be considered for allotment of an alternate plot and not otherwise. Admittedly in this case out of 1749.02 bigha of land owned by the petitioner, only 881.04 bigha had been acquired. It is thus clear that the entire land of the petitioner not having been acquired, the question of him being considered for an alternate plot would not arise. It is not as if that the petitioner had been left homeless. It could not be imagined that in all this period of time i.e. from the year 1992, the petitioner has no roof or shelter.
Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J