Full Text
Translation output
3>
•" $-38 .' ^ ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
' ' + W.P.(C) 12102/2015 ' ~ • :
SURAJBHAN. .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, MrRajat Sehgal and ' \ \ Mr.Karandeep Khahna, Advocates. /
^ -versus •
^ VGOVT OF NCTOFDELHIi&ANR - .....Respondents
, ,, Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, .
. , ' Advs for L & B. Department. , ;
\ Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv 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
15.04.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an
--i alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been; rejected. The
• rejection letter had quoted thejudgment 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 entitledto allotment of an alternate plot. , ,• _ - .
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this
Stand. Submission is that out of 102 bighas. and 5 biswas land in village Dhoolsiras, Mew Delhi 98 bighas 15 biswas of land has been
2016:DHC:8779
• acquired. 3 bighas and 10 biswas is the land left with the petitioner.
The petitioner has 1/4"" share in the land. It is the ftirther submission of the learned counselfor the respondent no.l that since 3 bighas and
10 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the. aforenoted
•" $-38 .' ^ ^
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
' ' + W.P.(C) 12102/2015 ' ~ • :
SURAJBHAN. .....Petitioner
Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, MrRajat Sehgal and ' \ \ Mr.Karandeep Khahna, Advocates. /
^ -versus •
^ VGOVT OF NCTOFDELHIi&ANR - .....Respondents
, ,, Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, .
. , ' Advs for L & B. Department. , ;
\ Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv 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
15.04.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an
--i alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been; rejected. The
• rejection letter had quoted thejudgment 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 entitledto allotment of an alternate plot. , ,• _ - .
Counter affidavit filed by the respondent has supported this
Stand. Submission is that out of 102 bighas. and 5 biswas land in village Dhoolsiras, Mew Delhi 98 bighas 15 biswas of land has been
2016:DHC:8779
• acquired. 3 bighas and 10 biswas is the land left with the petitioner.
The petitioner has 1/4"" share in the land. It is the ftirther submission of the learned counselfor the respondent no.l that since 3 bighas and
10 biswas still remained unacquired, the ratio of the. aforenoted
ORDER
(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 102 bighas and5 biswas. 98 bighas and 15 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was.owner to the extent of 1/4^^ share in this total area of land."
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 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 wqUld 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 thesaid 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 arjguments in the backdrop ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states that the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 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 3 bighas and 10 biswas. Hisargument thatin future if his
' land is acquired, he would again notgetthebenefit ofthis 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 spe^cimen 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. 3 bigha and 10 biswas of land-still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/4^^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Sinsh Kanwar noted supra would be fiillv applicable.
Para 6 ofthe judgment is relevant. It reads hereirias 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 / residentialplot / flat Will 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 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. Disrnissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn
Record substantiates / this submission, The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in the aforenoted khasras in village Dhoolsiras was 102 bighas and5 biswas. 98 bighas and 15 biswas was acquired. The petitioner was.owner to the extent of 1/4^^ share in this total area of land."
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 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 wqUld 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 thesaid 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 arjguments in the backdrop ofthis Policy. This Policy clearly states that the Awards announced on 24.10.2002 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 3 bighas and 10 biswas. Hisargument thatin future if his
' land is acquired, he would again notgetthebenefit ofthis 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 spe^cimen 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. 3 bigha and 10 biswas of land-still remained unacquired. The petitioner had 1/4^^ share in this land. The judgment ofJai Sinsh Kanwar noted supra would be fiillv applicable.
Para 6 ofthe judgment is relevant. It reads hereirias 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 / residentialplot / flat Will 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 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. Disrnissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn