Full Text
Translation output
$-20 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 5735/2014 & C.M. No.14160/2014, KISHAN CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
, Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Rajat Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 5735/2014 & C.M. No.14160/2014, KISHAN CHAND (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS.
, 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 and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B.
Department.
Mr.V.C.Jha and Mr. Jayendra, Advocates for DDA.
Respondents
Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B.
Department.
Mr.V.C.Jha and Mr. Jayendra, Advocates for DDA.
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
15.4.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an 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
15.4.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the
ORDER
of the Apex Court reported in Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Singh Kanwar decided on
14.09.2015 in C.A. No. 8289/2010 holding that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate'plot.
Contention is that the judgment of Jai Singh Kanwar has been wrongly applied. The Scheme does not envisage a situation
2016:DHC:8733
•a that until and unless the entire land of the party has been acquired, he is not 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 affidavit not filed by the respondent no.l. Learned counsel for respondent no.l states that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 78 bighas 11 biswas of land, only 73 bighas and 12 biswas of land has been acquired. The land (unacquired) left out is 4 bighas
19 biswas in which the petitioner is having l/S^*" share. Thus, the land of the petitioner not having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment (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 separate khasra numbers. The agricultural land which remained with the petitioner was 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petition had been granted an alternate plot again does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as admittedly even if a plot was considered in favour of the relative of the petitioner, it was prior to the judgment of Jai Sinsh 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 not been acquired. The. land left with the petitioner is 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards in which the petitioner has ,1/8® share. The judgment of Jai Sinsh 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 shouldbe allotteda plot. The Scheme therefore providedthat only a person who does not owna house/ residentialplot /flat will be entitled to apply."
The object of 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.
- - , , •
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14,2016/ndn
14.09.2015 in C.A. No. 8289/2010 holding that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled to allotment of an alternate'plot.
Contention is that the judgment of Jai Singh Kanwar has been wrongly applied. The Scheme does not envisage a situation
2016:DHC:8733
•a that until and unless the entire land of the party has been acquired, he is not 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 affidavit not filed by the respondent no.l. Learned counsel for respondent no.l states that in Village Dhoolsiras out of 78 bighas 11 biswas of land, only 73 bighas and 12 biswas of land has been acquired. The land (unacquired) left out is 4 bighas
19 biswas in which the petitioner is having l/S^*" share. Thus, the land of the petitioner not having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment (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 separate khasra numbers. The agricultural land which remained with the petitioner was 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards.
Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petition had been granted an alternate plot again does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as admittedly even if a plot was considered in favour of the relative of the petitioner, it was prior to the judgment of Jai Sinsh 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 not been acquired. The. land left with the petitioner is 9 biswas i.e. 450 square yards in which the petitioner has ,1/8® share. The judgment of Jai Sinsh 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 shouldbe allotteda plot. The Scheme therefore providedthat only a person who does not owna house/ residentialplot /flat will be entitled to apply."
The object of 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.
- - , , •
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14,2016/ndn