MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 27th march, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WP (C) No. 4855/1999 and WP (C) No. 4854/1999.

( 2 ) BROADLY, the facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 claims to have come into possession in 1986-87 as actual owner of land bearing Khasra No. 86/18 (5-4) and 86/17/1 (1-16) admeasuring 7 bighas situated in the revenue estate of Village Narela, Delhi.

( 3 ) ON or about 23rd August, 1990, Respondent No. 1 filed proceedings under Section 84 of the Delhi Land reforms Act,1954 (for short the DLR Act) before the Sub divisional Magistrate/ Revenue Assistant (SDM/ra) for being declared as a bhumidar of the said land in terms of section 85 of the DLR Act.

( 4 ) WHILE the above case filed by Respondent No. 1 was pending adjudication (it was decided on 21st september, 1993) the appropriate Government issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the LA Act) on 19th March, 1993 proposing to acquire a large area of land in Village Narela including that of Respondent No. 1. The appropriate government thereafter issued a declaration under Section 6 of the LA Act on 20th April, 1993 and possession of the land was taken on 7th October, 1993. An Award under section 11 of the LA Act was passed on 31st March, 1995.

( 5 ) AS mentioned above, the case filed by Respondent no. 1 was adjudicated by the SDM/ra on 21st September, 1993 whereby she was declared a bhumidar of the said land.

( 6 ) ON or about 21st May, 1961, the Delhi Government appears to have come out with a scheme (amended in 1989) wherein it was decided that persons whose land had been acquired under the provisions of the LA Act are entitled to an alternative residential plot subject to fulfilling certain conditions. Two relevant conditions are that the applicant should be the recorded owner of the acquired land and he/she should have received compensation for the acquisition.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to Respondent No. 1, she fulfilled both the conditions (in fact there is no dispute with regard to the second condition) and, therefore, she was entitled to an alternative residential plot. Unfortunately, she was not given an alternative residential plot by the delhi Government, and on the contrary her request in this regard was rejected by an order dated 22nd July, 1999.

( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 22nd July, 1999 and prayed for an appropriate order directing the Delhi Government to allot her an alternative residential plot against her acquired land.

( 9 ) BY the impugned judgment and order, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the delhi Government to consider the case of Respondent No. 1 for allotment of an alternative plot in accordance with the policy.

( 10 ) IN appeal before us, learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions: firstly, that the sdm/ra had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case filed by Respondent No. 1 after the notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued; and secondly, that Respondent no. 1 was not the recorded owner of the said land prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the la Act.

( 11 ) AS far as the first contention is concerned, nothing has been shown in the LA Act to oust the jurisdiction of the SDM/ra. Reference was, however, made to Section 1 (2) (c) of the DLR Act to contend that since the said land was acquired, the SDM/ra had no jurisdiction to decide any dispute in relation to the said land. We cannot agree with learned counsel for the appellant.

( 12 ) SECTION 1 (2) (c) of the DLR Act reads as follows:-

1. Short title, extent and commencement (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) It extends to the whole of the Union territory of delhi, but shall not apply to - (a) to (b) xxx xxx xxx (c) areas held and occupied for a public purpose or a work of public utility and declared as such by the Chief co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document