Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAMANAND - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 623 of 1993
Decided On : 07/30/1993
Held:
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, a duty is cast upon the DDA, by Sub-section (2) of Section 21, to so exercise its power of disposal of the acquired land as to give to the persons who are living or carrying on business or other activities on the said land, if they so desire, accommodation thereon suitable to their reasonable requirements. Careful reading of Section 21, however, shows that it is not at all applicable to Nazul land, and that it applies only to land which belongs to the DDA, and is referred to as land acquired by the Central Government and transferred to the DDA. This is the particular kind of land that is clearly described, in so many words, in Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21. In the next clause, the expression "such land" obviously, eludes to the land mentioned in the earlier clause. The only difference in the two clauses is in respect of disposal of such land, under Clause (a) without development, and under Clause (b) after development. Sequentially, Sub-section (2) proceeds to regulate the exercise of power of the Authority to dispose of that very land, which is the subject matter of Sub-section (1), i.e., the land which belongs to the DDA. It is, thus, clear that Section 21 does not apply to acquired land which continues, to vest in the Central Government and is known and described as Nazul Land. It appears that the impression, reflected in the case of Rajinder Kumar (supra), that allotment of Nazul Land will be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Act, is not quite correct.
ALTERNATIVE PLOT - An individual whose land has been acquired has no absolute right, to be allotted an alternative plot but may be considered for alternative plot for residential purpose.
As a result of the above discussion, we find that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules.
Now, let us turn to the second question. It may be stated at the outset that individuals whose land has been acquired, are not given residential plots in lieu of acquisition of their land, for which they arc paid full compensation, under the Land Acquisition Act. This is an additional benefit envisaged for resettlement of the displaced individuals, and premium is chargeable from such individuals at predetermined rates for allotment of alternative plots under the Nazul Rules:
DELHI DEVLOPMENT AUTHORITY (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 - Rule 4 — Confers discretionery power on DDA to allot land to any of the named category of persons. It docs not confer a right of allotment on any particular person.
Rule 6 — The proviso to rule 6(1) provide for determination of size of the plot by the Administrator if an individual is allotted a residential plot, but the DDA has the power to decide if right to allotment of plot would accrue and of what size and where.
Rule 2 and 6 — Price of land-to be fixed on the basis of predetermined rate notified by Central Govt. prevailing on the date of offer by DDA and not on the basis of date of application.
( 1 ). In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india, in the context of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land for purposes of planned development of Delhi, two questions of law have arisen for determination under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Nazul Rules ). The questions are:-
1. Whether a person whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi has got a vested right to the allotment of alternative plot of land for residential purposes? 2. What is the relevant date with reference to which premium at predetermined rates would be chargeable from such a person for allotment of the residential plot- should it be the date when his land is acquired, or when he makes the application to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi for allotment, or when the Administrator makes the recommendation for allotment, or when the allotment is made by the Delhi Development Authority under the Nazul Rules?"
( 2 ). The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing a letter dated 13th of January 1993 (Annexurep-l), received by him from the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the dda ), offering allotment of plot No. 6 Pocket No. 4a Sector 123 in Rohini Residential Scheme measuring 207 sq. mts. , on perpetual leasehold basis, at the provisional rate of Rs. 1,650. 65 per sq. mt. ; and, furthermore, for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot of the size of 250 sq. yds. @ Rs. 419. 00 per sq. yd. , or at the rates prevailing on the date when he submitted his application to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi for allotment in the year 1986. The petitioner has made out his case on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajinder Kumar vs. Union of India, reported in 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter 80.
( 3 ). When the writ petition came up for preliminary hearing, it was felt by the Admission Bench that the opinion expressed in the case of Rajinder Kumar required reconsideration. The matter was, therefore, referred to the Full Bench for decision. The order of reference dated 9th of February 1993 is reproduced below:-
"learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rajinder Kumar v. Union of India, 1992 Rajdhani Law Reporter 80 and has contended that the rate which is payable has to be as on the date of the application and not on the date of allotment. The attention of the Court, while deciding the aforesaid case, was not invited to the provisions of the Nazul Rules which contemplate predetermined rates being charged in respect of alternative allotments. One of the elements which has to be taken into consideration while determining the pre-deterined rates is the cost of acquisition plus the cost of development. The cost of development obviously cannot be ascertained till the development of the land is complete. lt may happen that the application for alternative allotment of plot can be filed before developed plots are available for allotment. It is, therefore, doubtful whether the proposition laid down in Rajinder Kumar s case (supra) is correct because if the price is to be as on the, date of application but no plots of land which are developed and ready for allotment are developed and ready for allotment are available then, it will not be possible to determine, the rate as specified by the Nazul Rules. The decision in Rajinder Kumar s case possibly needs re-consideation. "
( 4 ). In Rajinder Kumar s case, the petitioner s father had applied for allotment of an altemative plot in the year 1982. After his father s death in 1983, the petitioner pursued the matter. He supplied to the Delhi Administration all the required particulars and information. In the year 1990, since his claim h
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
