A tenant has no independent right to claim an alternate site under a scheme for resettlement of occupants of land acquired for planned development, if the owner of the property has not claimed an alternate site.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have soughtthe quashing of acquisition proceedings in respect of a plot of land comprised inkhasra No. l8/8 measuring 1 Bigha and4biswas (1200 sq. yds. approx.) situatedwithin the revenue estate of village Badli in Delhi. In the alternative, it is prayedthat its possession be not disturbed till such time respondent No. 1 allots anddeliver an alternate site of an equally sized industrial plot in a regular industrialarea.

( 2 ) THROUGH notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Acton 24/10/1961, a very vast area was notified for being acquired by thegovernment at public expense for public purpose, namely, planned developmentof Delhi. It included the land in question also.

( 3 ) COLLECTOR, Land Acquisition of Delhi (Shahdara) on 30. 3. 1965 made hisaward. It is the petitioners case that a piece of land comprised in Khasra No. l8/8 measuring 1 Bigha 4 biswas has been in their occupation as a tenant which waslet out by its owner M/s Badli Cooperative Multi-purpose Society. At the time ofletting out there already existed three rooms and a verandah but later onimprovements were carried out by the petitioners and a boundary wall was alsoconstructed after spending considerable amount. Plant and machinery wereinstalled for carrying on its business of processing food-stuffs. It is further averredthat after the Collector, Land Acquisition made his award, actual possession ofthe property acquired was not taken from the petitioners. Only symbolicpossession was taken. The petitioners continued to remain in actual occupationof the plot of land and had been running the manufacturing activity on thedisputed plot for which requisite permission was also accorded from time to timeby respondent No. l. In the year 1970, a request was made by the petitioners forallotting analternate site for establishing the factory in view of the policy whichhad been formulated by the Central Government for resettlement of occupants ofsuch lands who were affected by the planned development of Delhi. Withoutdeciding the said application and without taking recourse to law, the subordinatestaff of respondent No. 2, on 23. 1. 1993 came to the property in question withoutany notice and demolished the petitioners property with the help of bull-dozersas a result of which the petitioners suffered a huge loss to the tune of about Rs. 25lakhs. The petitioners are still in occupation of the plot. In this background this writ petition has been filed.

( 4 ) IN the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, it is claimedthat the owner of the plot in question, namely, M/s. Badli Cooperative Multipurpose Society, through one Net Ram Yadav preferred their claim for compensation who also took part in acquisition proceedings but did not claim any alternate site under the Scheme. The petitioners status was that of a tenant underm/s Badli Cooperative Multi-purpose Society and it had no right, title or interestover the land in question. Under the Scheme it had no right to claim any alternatesite. In terms of the policy, only the claims of owners of the property are tenable. It is also claimed that after the possession of the property had been taken underthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the property was transferred tomunicipal Corporation of Delhi on 29. 10. 1983 for Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagarand on and from that date when the possession was taken, the property vestedin the Government free from all encumbrances. Symbolic possession of theproperty was taken on 26/06/1965. It is denied by respondent No. l that thepetitioners in the year 1960 established a factory over the plot in question. Asregards the averments made by the petitioner of making improvements and forgrant of permission for running a factory, it is claimed that the petitioners registration in the year 1965 was not on the plot in question but it was on D-3/18, Model Town, Delhi. All correspondence was addressed to the peti