Back
1987 Supreme(Del) 168
High Court Of Delhi
MADAN LAL SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 135 of 1980
Decided On : 04/01/1987
A.S.CHANDHIOK, I.C.Kumar, REKHA SHARMA
Evictees from unauthorized colonies are entitled to rehabilitation, including allotment of alternative flats, under the rehabilitation scheme of the Delhi Administration, even if they have not applied within the stipulated time, provided they can prove their eviction and ownership of a plot in the colony.
Headnote:
LAND ACQUISITION - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 4, 6 - ACQUISITION OF LAND - UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION - REHABILITATION OF EVICTEES - ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE FLATS - ENTITLEMENT OF EVICTEES - DELAY IN APPLICATION - CONSIDERATION OF MERITS - PROOF OF EVICTION - OWNERSHIP OF PLOT - FRESH REPRESENTATION - DISPOSAL OF REPRESENTATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, residents of Vinod Nagar, an unauthorized colony in Delhi, were evicted from their houses in 1975. They were allotted 25 yards of land each in resettlement colonies. They sought restoration of their original land or allotment of new land. The land in question had been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and vested in the Government.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to restoration of their original land as it had been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The court also held that the petitioners were entitled to alternative flats under the rehabilitation scheme of the Delhi Administration, even if they had not applied within the stipulated time, provided they could prove their eviction and ownership of a plot in Vinod Nagar.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of their original land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act? 2. Whether the petitioners were entitled to alternative flats under the rehabilitation scheme of the Delhi Administration, even if they had not applied within the stipulated time?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to restoration of their original land as it had been acquired by the Government under the Land Acquisition Act. The court reasoned that the land had vested in the Government free from all encumbrances and had become Government land. The petitioners had purchased the land at their own risk, knowing that it was subject to acquisition. 2. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to alternative flats under the rehabilitation scheme of the Delhi Administration, even if they had not applied within the stipulated time, provided they could prove their eviction and ownership of a plot in Vinod Nagar. The court reasoned that the scheme was intended to rehabilitate genuine evictees and that it would be inequitable to deny benefits to those who had not applied within the stipulated time due to circumstances beyond their control.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioners, other than petitioners 7 and 12, who had been allotted alternative flats, were granted no further relief. Petitioners 7 and 12 were allowed to file a fresh representation with the respondents for allotment of alternative flats, along with proof of eviction and ownership of a plot in Vinod Nagar. The respondents were directed to dispose of the representation within three months of receipt.
( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 14 different petitioners and it was inter alia prayed in the writ petition that the lands from which they were originally being evicted should be restored to them.
( 2 ) IT appears that the petitioners were living in a colony called Vinod Nagar. This colony is stated to have been in existence since 1965 when plots were purchased by the petitioners from a coloniser. Houses were then alleged to have been constructed on the plots so purchased. It is an admitted fact that this colony was unauthorised and no building plans had been passed with respect to the houses which so constructed.
( 3 ) IN December, 1975, the houses had been constructed by the petitioners were demolished. They we then accommodated in resettlement colonies and 25 yards of land was allotted to each of them. I am informed that petitioners 7and12 have two plots of 25 yards each.
( 4 ) IT is contended by the petitioners that there were number of other colonies which were unauthorised but which were regularised. It is further the case of the petitioner that a rehabilitation cell was set up by the Delhi Administration with a view to resettle the uprooted persons like the petitioners. According to the petitioners decision has been taken that alternative sites of at least 45 sq. meters of land should be allotted and it was also promised that as far as possible these persons will be given back the lands from which they were evicted. The relief which is claimed in the writ petition is that the petitioners should be restored to the land from which they had been evicted and their colony regularised. In the alternative, it is prayed that a new lay out plan may be prepared and allotments of land may be made in favour of the petitioners.
( 5 ) THE respondents in the reply filed to the petition have raised preliminary contentions. It has been stated that disputed questions of facts are involved in this case and furthermore the lands which were in occupation of the petitioner have in fact been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the respondents, the petitioners are guilty of laches and on this ground alone the petition should be dismissed.
( 6 ) DURING the pendency of this petition an application, being C. M. No. 4838/83, was filed. It appears that the respondents had taken a policy decision that alternative flats would be allotted to persons, like the petitioners, if they make an application within a stipulated time and are further able to prove to the satisfaction of the respondents that they had been evicted from the lands owned by them in the year 1975-76. In this application, CM4838/83, the prayer which was made was that the respondents should be directed to issue proforma for allotment of alternate flats to the petitioners. It was specifically mentioned in the application, filed on behalf of the petitioners, that they were praying for allotment of either new flats or for re-entry into the plots from which they had been forcibly evicted.
( 7 ) ON 25th May, 1984, it was ordered by this Court that the Delhi Administration should issue the necessary proforma and accept the payments if the petitioners are eligible under the rules for the said relief. Sh. Chandiok learned counsel for the respondents informs me, and this is not disputed by the Petitioners , that except for Petitioner Nos- 7and12 alternative flates have been allotted to the other petitioners. As regards petitioner Nos. 7and12 are concerned proformas have not been issued to them because they have not been able to satisfy the respondents that the said two petitioners had been evicted along with the other petitioners, from Vinod Nagar.
( 8 ) IT appears to me that now there is no justifiable grievance of the petinoners except petitioners 7and12 and no relief, to my mind can be granted to them in this petition,
( 9 ) IT is not in dispute that the land which comprised Vinod Nagar and from wher
