Full Text
Translation output
$-13;, ^ , - '' ' HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5646/2014 &G.M. NO.13988/2014
SUKHVIR SINGH
Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat.Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
•
W.P.(C) 5646/2014 &G.M. NO.13988/2014
SUKHVIR 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 Jain andMs. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs forL & B. Department.
, CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 . File takenup todayas 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 letterhad quoted thejudgmentof the ApexCourt reported in
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Karmar 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 isthat thetotal landacquired in Village Dhoolsiras was 73 bigha. arid 12 biswas. 4 bigha and 19 biswas of land still
2016:DHC:8730 Ap remain unacquired. Since 73 bigha and 12 biswas was alone acquired
(out of the total land of 78 bigha and 11 biswas) and 4 bigha and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted
'Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain andMs. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs forL & B. Department.
, CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 . File takenup todayas 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 letterhad quoted thejudgmentof the ApexCourt reported in
Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sinsh Karmar 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 isthat thetotal landacquired in Village Dhoolsiras was 73 bigha. arid 12 biswas. 4 bigha and 19 biswas of land still
2016:DHC:8730 Ap remain unacquired. Since 73 bigha and 12 biswas was alone acquired
(out of the total land of 78 bigha and 11 biswas) and 4 bigha and 19 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the aforenoted
ORDER
(Jai Sinsh 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 separateidiasra numbers. The agriciiltural 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 (relied ujDon 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 future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point of time. His additional submission is that the reading of the Policy even othei-wise 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 Nvith this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, there is a Policy and
A the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in the backdrop of this 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 fliture if his land is acquired, he would again not get the benefit of this Policy is an
I 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\upport 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 of the petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bigha and .19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/8^'^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Singh Kanwar noted supra would be fully applicable.
Para 6 of the 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 / residential plot /flat will be entitled to apply."
•The object of the Policy (whether old policy of the year 1961 or the new pohcy of the year IS'86) was to provide succour to those persons vyho 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 d. infirmity. Petition is without any merit.' Dismisse
SEPTEMBER 14; 2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J
-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 separateidiasra numbers. The agriciiltural 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 (relied ujDon 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 future he would not be entitled to the benefit of this Policy; presuming that this land is acquired at a later point of time. His additional submission is that the reading of the Policy even othei-wise 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 Nvith this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, there is a Policy and
A the petitioner in fact has at the very outset detailed his arguments in the backdrop of this 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 fliture if his land is acquired, he would again not get the benefit of this Policy is an
I 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\upport 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 of the petitioner had not been acquired. 4 bigha and .19 biswas of land still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/8^'^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Singh Kanwar noted supra would be fully applicable.
Para 6 of the 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 / residential plot /flat will be entitled to apply."
•The object of the Policy (whether old policy of the year 1961 or the new pohcy of the year IS'86) was to provide succour to those persons vyho 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 d. infirmity. Petition is without any merit.' Dismisse
SEPTEMBER 14; 2016 A INDERMEET KAUR, J