Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C)8655/2014&C.M.NO.19935/2014
MAHENDER SINGH.....Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna,Advocates.
W.P.(C)8655/2014&C.M.NO.19935/2014
MAHENDER SINGH.....Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta,Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna,Advocates.
VERSUS
GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI& ANR..... Respondents ^ , Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L& B.Department.
Mr.Arjun Pant,Adv for DDA.
Mr.Arjun Pant,Adv for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICEINDERMEET KAUR
14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday.
The petitioner is aggrieved by. the communication dated
28.8.2014 vide which his application seeking allotrnent ofan alternate plotin lieu ofhis 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
28.8.2014 vide which his application seeking allotrnent ofan alternate plotin lieu ofhis acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
ORDER
of the Apex Court reported in Delhi
Administration Vs. Jdi Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No.8289/2010 holding that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Contention is that thejudgment ofJai 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
2016:DHC:8731 entitled to be considered for an alternate plot. Additional submission is that the alternate plots had been granted to other persons which is also discriminatory.
Counter affidavitnotfiled by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l states that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 40 bighas 18 biswasofland,only35 bighas and2biswaofland has been acquired. The land (unacquired) left out is 5 bighas 16 biswas in which the petitioner had a 1/3'^'^ share.Thusthe land ofthe petitioner not-having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio ofthe aforenoted judgment(JaiSinsh Kanwar)would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himselfin his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was40 bighas and 18 biswas. 35 bighas and 2biswas was acquired.
The remaining land is 5 bighas 16 biswas. The petitioner was owner to the extentof 1/3^''share in this totalurea ofland.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petition had been granted an alternate plotagain does notcome tothe rescue ofthe petitioner as admittedly even ifa plot was considered in favour ofthe relative ofthe petitioner,it was prior to thejudgment of
Jai Sin2h Kanwar 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 notbeen acquired. The balance land left with the petitioner was5 bighas 16 biswas. The petitioner had 1/3"^ share in this land. The judgmentoiJaiSinsh Kanwarnoted supra would befully applicable.
Para6ofthejudgmentis relevant. Itreads herein as under:-
"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, heshould be allotted aplot. TheScheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does notown a house/residentialplot/flatwill be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe Policy(whether old policy ofthe 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 ofthe 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 sjbffers from no infirmity. Petition is withoutany merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn
Administration Vs. Jdi Sinsh Kanwar decided on 14.09.2011 in C.A.
No.8289/2010 holding that since the entire land ofthe petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate plot.
Contention is that thejudgment ofJai 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
2016:DHC:8731 entitled to be considered for an alternate plot. Additional submission is that the alternate plots had been granted to other persons which is also discriminatory.
Counter affidavitnotfiled by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent no.l states that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 40 bighas 18 biswasofland,only35 bighas and2biswaofland has been acquired. The land (unacquired) left out is 5 bighas 16 biswas in which the petitioner had a 1/3'^'^ share.Thusthe land ofthe petitioner not-having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio ofthe aforenoted judgment(JaiSinsh Kanwar)would apply.
Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himselfin his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was40 bighas and 18 biswas. 35 bighas and 2biswas was acquired.
The remaining land is 5 bighas 16 biswas. The petitioner was owner to the extentof 1/3^''share in this totalurea ofland.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petition had been granted an alternate plotagain does notcome tothe rescue ofthe petitioner as admittedly even ifa plot was considered in favour ofthe relative ofthe petitioner,it was prior to thejudgment of
Jai Sin2h Kanwar 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 notbeen acquired. The balance land left with the petitioner was5 bighas 16 biswas. The petitioner had 1/3"^ share in this land. The judgmentoiJaiSinsh Kanwarnoted supra would befully applicable.
Para6ofthejudgmentis relevant. Itreads herein as under:-
"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, heshould be allotted aplot. TheScheme thereforeprovided that only aperson who does notown a house/residentialplot/flatwill be entitled to apply."
The object ofthe Policy(whether old policy ofthe 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 ofthe 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 sjbffers from no infirmity. Petition is withoutany merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR,J SEPTEMBER 14,2016 ndn