Full Text
Translation output
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5648/2014 & C.M. No.13991/2014
SURAJBHAN
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 5648/2014 & C.M. No.13991/2014
SURAJBHAN
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT NCT OF DELHI & ORS.
Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B. Department.
Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advs for DDA.
Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B. Department.
Mr. Chetan Lokur and Mr. Nitish Chaudhary, Advs for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 Filetaken uptoday as 13.9.2016 v^as declared holiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
02.6.2014 vide whichhis application seeking allotment of an alternate plot inlieu ofhis acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
14.09.2016 Filetaken uptoday as 13.9.2016 v^as declared holiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated
02.6.2014 vide whichhis application seeking allotment of an alternate plot inlieu ofhis acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
ORDER
of the Apex Court reported in Delhi
Administration Vs. Jai Simh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No. 8289/2010 held that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment ofan alternate plot.
Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.1today. Itis taken on record. Submission oflearned counsel for respondent no.l is
2016:DHC:8724 that the total landacquired in Village Dhoolsiras was 73 bighaand 12 biswas. 4 bighaand 19biswas of land still remain unacquired. Since
73 bighaand 12biswas was alone acquired (outof thetotal land of 78 bigha and 11 biswas) and 4 bigha and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment (Jai Singh 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.
The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/8^*^ share in this total area of land. Submission is that out of this 4 bigha and 19 biswas which was left, there was one plot measuring 3 bigha and 18 biswas and there was another plot measuring 10 biswas of land. These lands were in two separate khasra numbers. The agricultural land which remained with the petitioner was 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period
> 03.04.1986. As per the Policy of 03.04.1986 (rehed 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 fixture he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming thatthis 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
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 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 or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards. His argument that in ftiture 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 withan application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexureshave been quoted.
The admitted fact is thatthe entire landofthe petitioner hadnot been acquired. 4 bigha and 19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/8^*^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai SinshKanwar noted supra would be ftilly 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 aplot. The Scheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does not own ahouse / residentialplot/flat will be
- -/ entitled to apply." The object ofthePoHcy (whether old policy oftheyear 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 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Administration Vs. Jai Simh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No. 8289/2010 held that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment ofan alternate plot.
Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.1today. Itis taken on record. Submission oflearned counsel for respondent no.l is
2016:DHC:8724 that the total landacquired in Village Dhoolsiras was 73 bighaand 12 biswas. 4 bighaand 19biswas of land still remain unacquired. Since
73 bighaand 12biswas was alone acquired (outof thetotal land of 78 bigha and 11 biswas) and 4 bigha and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment (Jai Singh 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.
The petitioner was owner to the extent of 1/8^*^ share in this total area of land. Submission is that out of this 4 bigha and 19 biswas which was left, there was one plot measuring 3 bigha and 18 biswas and there was another plot measuring 10 biswas of land. These lands were in two separate khasra numbers. The agricultural land which remained with the petitioner was 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards.
The Award in the instant case was pronounced post period
> 03.04.1986. As per the Policy of 03.04.1986 (rehed 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 fixture he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming thatthis 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
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 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 or after 03.04.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment of an alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards. His argument that in ftiture 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 withan application seeking an allotment). In fact this Court is at a loss to understand as to why these Annexureshave been quoted.
The admitted fact is thatthe entire landofthe petitioner hadnot been acquired. 4 bigha and 19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/8^*^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai SinshKanwar noted supra would be ftilly 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 aplot. The Scheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does not own ahouse / residentialplot/flat will be
- -/ entitled to apply." The object ofthePoHcy (whether old policy oftheyear 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 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J