Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 2433
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mukundakam Sharma, C.J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Raj Karan and Ors.
Vs.
Land and Building Department and Anr.
LPA 1083/2007
Decided On: 22.10.2007
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sudarshan Tomar, Adv.
Lack of diligence in pursuing the case for allotment of alternative land and failure to fulfill the eligibility conditions and prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy led to the dismissal of the appeal.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Alternative Plot Allotment - The court dismissed the appeal seeking directions for allotment of alternative plots, stating that the appellants failed to diligently pursue their case for allotment of alternative land and did not fulfill the eligibility conditions and prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed writ petitions seeking directions for allotment of alternative plots in view of acquired land. The land acquisition officer asked for documents, which were not supplied, and the case was closed in 1993. Another application for alternative land was rejected as time-barred.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were not diligent in pursuing their case for allotment of alternative land, failed to supply the required documents, and did not fulfill the eligibility conditions and prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy.
Issues: The issues revolved around the diligence of the appellants in pursuing their case for allotment of alternative land, non-fulfillment of eligibility conditions, and prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants' lack of diligence and failure to fulfill the eligibility conditions and prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy warranted dismissal of the appeal seeking allotment of alternative plots.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as having no merit.
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 19th March, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants herein.
2. The said writ petitions were filed seeking directions to the respondents to make allotment of alternative plots in favor of the appellants in view of 1/3rd share of acquired land measuring 28 bighas and 6 biswas, situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Sahupur, New Delhi acquired by the Land Acquisition Award dated 1.9.1986 under the scheme of large scale acquisition.
3. It was stated in the writ petitions that one of the brothers, Sh. Raj Karan applied for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land in Village Sahupur on 27th December, 1987. It was also stated in the said writ petitions that Sh. Raj Karan applied for allotment of alternative plot on behalf of all his brothers.
4. The land Acquisition Officer wrote letters on 21st June, 1991 and 2nd April, 1993 asking Shri Raj Karan to submit the documents including the relinquishment deeds from other legal heirs. However, Sh. Raj Karan failed to submit any such documents. The Department, thereforee, closed the case in the year 1993 due to non-furnishing the relevant documents. The appellants thereafter remained quite and went into deep slumber till 2002. On 5.9.2002 another brother Mr. Om Prakash filed an application for allotment of alternative land. The application was considered and rejected by the land allotment committee as being barred by time as it was filed along after the prescribed cut of date, 1.5.1989.
5. On going through the records and on appreciation thereof, the learned Single Judge has held that the appellants have not been diligent in pursuing their case for allotment of alternative land with the respondents. Documents called for by the appellants were not supplied within the reasonable time. Although, at one stage, it was submitted that some documents were submitted by the appellants to the Land and Building Department on 4th July, 1991 but the same could not be supported by furnishing proper documents with the seal of the Authority showing that such documents were received.
6. We have considered the records in the light of the submission made before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. On going through the records, we find that Sh. Raj Karan had applied for allotment of alternative plot under his application dated 29th December, 1987, which was stated to be an application on behalf of all the brothers, whereupon he was asked to file all the documents vide letters dated 21st June, 1991 and 2nd April, 1993. The said documents were not supplied and furnished to the respondents. Consequent upon which the case of the appellants was closed in the year 1993.
7. As per policy of the respondents, a closed matter cannot be re-opened.
8. On 5th September, 2002, one Mr. Om Prakash stated to be the son of Sh. Jai Lal claiming to be the co-owner of the acquired land, had applied for the alternative plot suppressing the fact that on earlier occasion, his brother Sh. Raj Karan had applied for the alternative plot and that the case was closed in the year 1993. However, despite the said fact the application filed by Sh. Om Prakash dated 05.9.2002, was considered and rejected by the Land Allotment Committee on the ground that the application was time barred being filed after prescribed last date 1st May, 1989. The scheme of the respondents for allotment of alternative plot also envisages that a closed case should not be re-opened and the same does not vest any right for allotment of an alternative plot. The appellants could have been allotted alternative plots, if they fulfilled eligibility conditions and had complied with the prescribed terms and conditions as per the policy. The appellants have failed to fulfilll the conditions stipulated in the policy. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. The appeal has no merit and the same is di
