Full Text
Translation output
$-32 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 7026/2014
MAHENDER SINGH
Petitioner ' Through Mr.VikasMehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and
Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 7026/2014
MAHENDER SINGH
Petitioner ' Through Mr.VikasMehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and
Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
VERSUS
^ GOVT. OF NCI OF DELHI & ANR..... Respondents
Through Ms. Deepika, Adv for GNCTD.
Through Ms. Deepika, Adv for GNCTD.
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
28.03.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an
V 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
28.03.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an
V alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
ORDER
ofthe Apex Court reported in
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh 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. Submission is that the total land acquired of the petitioner in
Village Dhoolsiras in different khasras as mentioned in the petition was 26 bighas 2 biswas. 26 bighas 9 biswas of land still remain
2016:DHC:8727 y ^ ' unacquired. Since 26 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out of the total land of52 bighas and 11 biswas) and 26 bighas and 9biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment {Jai
SinshKanwar) 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,52 bighas 11 biswas. 26 bighas 2 biswas was acquired.
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 ofa 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 1bigha, even in future 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
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 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is
26 bighas and 9 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 ifthat 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 ofthe 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 beenquoted.
The admitted fact isthattheentire land ofthepetitioner had not been acquired. 26 bighas and 9 bisWas of land still remained unacquired. The judgment ofJdi 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 shouldbe allotteda plot. The Scheme therefore providedthat only aperson who does notown a house / residentialplot/flat will be entitled to apply. " .
The objectof 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 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh 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. Submission is that the total land acquired of the petitioner in
Village Dhoolsiras in different khasras as mentioned in the petition was 26 bighas 2 biswas. 26 bighas 9 biswas of land still remain
2016:DHC:8727 y ^ ' unacquired. Since 26 bighas 2 biswas ofland was acquired (out of the total land of52 bighas and 11 biswas) and 26 bighas and 9biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment {Jai
SinshKanwar) 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,52 bighas 11 biswas. 26 bighas 2 biswas was acquired.
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 ofa 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 1bigha, even in future 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
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 24.10.2002 or after 03.4.1986 where the land which has been acquired is less than 1 bigha, that person cannot be considered for allotment ofan alternate plot. The land left with the petitioner is
26 bighas and 9 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 ifthat 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 ofthe 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 beenquoted.
The admitted fact isthattheentire land ofthepetitioner had not been acquired. 26 bighas and 9 bisWas of land still remained unacquired. The judgment ofJdi 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 shouldbe allotteda plot. The Scheme therefore providedthat only aperson who does notown a house / residentialplot/flat will be entitled to apply. " .
The objectof 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 ndn INDERMEET KAUR, J