2012 Supreme(SC) 282

2012 (2) Supreme 694
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, JJ.
Delhi Administration and Others — Appellants
versus
Kaushilya Thakur and Another — Respondents
Civil Appeal no. 3432 of 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9091 of 2011)
Decided on : 9-4-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
It is trite to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation.

Headnote:Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4(1) -Application by husband of respondent1 for allotment of an alternative plot measuring 1000 sq. yards in view of land acquired-Dismissed-Writ petition-Allowed-Appeal-Dismissed by Division Bench-While granting relief to husband of respondent 1, Single Judge overlooked the fact that writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot – Again, claim of writ petitioner for allotment of land was clearly misconceived and was rightly rejected on the ground that he was not the owner of land comprised in khasra No. 70/2-The payment of compensation to writ petitioner in terms of award passed by Land Acquisition Collector and enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court could not lead to an inference that he was the owner of land forming part of Khasra No.70/2.- Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court did not pay serious attention to the stark reality that writ petitioner was not the owner of land mentioned in the application filed by him for allotment of 1000 square yards land- Impugned order as also order passed by Single Judge set aside and writ petition filed by husband of respondent No.1 dismissed-Appeal allowed (Paras 10, 11)

       Facts of the Case :

        A. By notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government of India proposed the acquisition of 2275 Bigha and 18 Biswa land of village Kotla for planned development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6(1) was issued and the award was passed. The possession of the acquired land was taken.

        B. The husband of respondent No.1, who is said to have purchased 1000 sq. yards land forming part of Khasra Nos.166, 167 and 168 from Hari Chand son of Mukh Dayal Singh, General Power of Attorney of M/s. Universal Colonizers vide Sale Deed lodged claim for compensation and succeeded in getting an amount of Rs.10126.30. On a reference made by the Collector under Section 18 of the Act, Additional District Judge, Delhi held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,283/-.

        C. After 10 years of receiving the amount of compensation in terms of the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur submitted application for allotment of an alternative plot measuring 1000 sq. yards. The application of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur was rejected by Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration on the ground that Khasra No.70/2 was not owned by him. Ranjodh Kumar Thakur challenged the rejection of his claim for allotment of 1000 sq. yards land by filing a Writ Petition. The same was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court solely on the ground that the Reference Court had accepted his entitlement to receive compensation in lieu of the acquired land which formed part of khasra No.70/2 of village Kotla. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        A. While granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1, the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of 1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because in the subsequent communication the concerned authorities had merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would stand.

        B. The claim of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur for allotment of land was clearly misconceived and was rightly rejected by the Joint Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration on the ground that he was not the owner of land comprised in khasra No. 70/2. A bare reading of Sale Deed dated 12.7.1959 executed by Shri Hari Chand in favour of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur shows that the former had sold land forming part of khasra Nos. 166, 167 and 168 of village Kotla and not khasra No.70/2. This being the position, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur did not have the locus to seek allotment of land in terms of the policy framed by the Government of India. The payment of compensation to Ranjodh Kumar Thakur in terms of the award passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the enhanced compensation determined by the Reference Court cannot lead to an inference that he was the owner of land forming part of Khasra No.70/2.

        C. In any case, before issuing a mandamus for allotment of 1000 square yards plot to the writ petitioner, the High Court should have called upon him to produce some tangible evidence to prove his ownership of land forming part of Khasra No.70/2. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court did not pay serious attention to the stark reality that Ranjodh Kumar Thakur was not the owner of land mentioned in the application filed by him for allotment of 1000 square yards land.

        The impugned order as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by the husband of respondent No.1 is dismissed. Appeal was allowed.