SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Del) 9

High Court Of Delhi
RAJINDER KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
C.M. 1561 of 1994
Decided On : 01/01/1995

Advocates Appeared:
ANAND YADAV, S.K.MAHAJAN

The right to allotment of an alternative plot under the Scheme for Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961 is determined on the basis of the date of the award, not the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

LAND ACQUISITION - DELHI LAND (RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER) ACT, 1972 - SECTION 4 - SCHEME FOR LARGE SCALE ACQUISITION, DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSAL OF LAND IN DELHI 1961 - RIGHT TO ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLOT - DETERMINATION OF RIGHT - CRUCIAL STAGE - DEATH OF RECORDED OWNER AFTER SECTION 4 NOTIFICATION - EFFECT - RIGHT OF HEIRS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's grandfather, Kanwar Singh, owned land in Delhi that was acquired by the Delhi Administration under the Scheme for Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961. Kanwar Singh died in 1975, and his son Ganga Ram received compensation for his share of the land. Ganga Ram applied for allotment of a residential plot under the Scheme, but died before the plot was allotted. The petitioner, Ganga Ram's son, filed a writ petition seeking allotment of a plot. The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to allot the petitioner land measuring not more than 400 sq. yds. at the rate payable when Ganga Ram applied for the plot in 1982.

Finding of the Court:

The Delhi High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to only half of the size of the plot that would have been allotted to Kanwar Singh, as he represented only one of Kanwar Singh's two sons. The court also held that the petitioner was liable to pay the price of the land as applicable on the date when an offer was made to him by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for allotment of a specific plot.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the entire size of the plot that would have been allotted to Kanwar Singh, or only half of the size of the plot. 2. Whether the petitioner was liable to pay the price of the land as applicable on the date when Ganga Ram applied for the plot, or on the date when an offer was made to him by the DDA.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to allotment of an alternative plot under the Scheme is determined on the basis of the date of the award, not the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The heirs of a deceased owner are entitled to only what the owner, if alive, would have been entitled to. 3. The right to allotment of an alternative plot is personal to the owner and is subject to certain conditions, including that the owner should not have any other residential house or plot.

Final Decision: The Delhi High Court partly allowed the review application and held that the petitioner was entitled to allotment of only half of the size of the plot that would have been allotted to Kanwar Singh, if he had been alive.

Mr. Arun Kumar, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application seeking review of the judgmentdated 17. 12. 1991 disposing of the writ petition.

( 2 ). The Delhi Administration had framed a Scheme called large Scale Acquisition , Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961. Under this Scheme thepersons whose lands were compulsorily acquired, were made entitled to allotmentof an alternative plot. One Kanwar Singh, grandfather of the petitioner was ownerof 57 bighas and 13 biswas of land in village Badli, Delhi. The land was notified foracquisition in the year 1961 when a notification under Section 4 of the Landacquisition Act was issued. Kanwar Singh died in the year 1975. The Award withrespect to the said land was made in the year 1981. Kanwar Singh had left behind twosons, namely, Ganga Ram and Prahlad Singh. Ganga Ram received compensationfor his share in the land belonging to Kanwar Singh. Thereafter Ganga Ram also diedon 14. 9. 1983. But before his death Ganga Ram had applied for allotment of aresidential plot under the aforesaid Scheme of the Delhi Administration. After thedeath of Ganga Ram, Rajinder Kumar, the petitioner herein pursued the saidapplication. Ultimately Rajinder Kumar filed the present writ petition in this Courtwhich was allowed vide judgment dated 17. 12. 1991. The respondents were directedto allot to the petitioner land measuring not more than 400 sq. yds. at a rate payableat the time when the father of the petitioner had applied for allotment of plot in 1982.

( 3 ). By the present application the respondents have sought review of the judgment dated 17. 12. 1991 on two grounds, namely,

(A) that the petitioner is entitled to only half of the land which would havebeen allotted to Kanwar Singh because the petitioner represents thebranch of only one of the two sons of Kanwar Singh; (b) that in view of a subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court thepetitioner is liable to pay the price of the land as applicable on the datewhen an offer is made to him by the DDA for allotment of a specific plot.

( 4 ). However, when notice of the application was issued to the petitioner in writpetition on 24. 2. 94, it was confined to the first ground. This is so as the subsequentchange of law or any decision of a Court in some other case cannot affect thejudgment in the present case particularly when it has not been appealed against. Stress is thus only on the first ground. According to Mr. Mahajan if the owner of landdies after notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, all the legal heirstogether are entitled to one plot of the size to which the deceased would have beenentitled as per the Scheme. Kanwar Singh who was the recorded owner at the timeof notification under Sec. 4 left behind two sons, namely, Ganga Ram and Prahladsingh. The petitioner in the writ petition represents the branch of Ganga Ram alone. Therefore, he is entitled to only half of the size of the plot which would have beenallotted to Kanwar Singh. In other words it is submitted that on account of death ofthe recorded owner after Section 4 notification the heirs cannot have the advantageof allotment of plots as per number of heirs left behind. If the application forallotment of an alternative plot is jointly made by all the heirs, they will together getone plot. Otherwise the heirs will have to share the plot between themselves as perplot their respective shares in the acquired land. In the present case the deceased leftbehind two sons. Only one son made the application and his branch was before thecourt. He will be entitled to half of the plot which would have been allottable tokanwar Singh.

( 5 ). The main question for consideration is: For purposes of determination of theright to allotment of a plot under the Scheme what is the crucial stage? Is it the stagewhen notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued notifying theland for acquisition for a public purpose or it is the date when the award is made?according to the learned Cou




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top