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

2015 Supreme(Del) 3528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI, JAYANT NATH, JJ.
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THR SECRETARY - Appellant
Versus
POONAM GUPTA & Ors. – Respondent
LPA 190, 191, 193, 195/2015 & CM No.6083, 6097, 6109, 6128, 6096, 6108, 6127, 6099, 6111, 6130, 6084, 6086/2015
Decided On : 8.12.2015

Advocates Appeared:
For the appellant:Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Yeeshu Jain and Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Advocates for the appellants.
For the respondent:Mr.Vineet Mehta and Mr.Ankur Gupta, Advocates.
Mr.N.S. Dalal and Mr. Davesh, Advocates, Mr.B.S.Maan, Mr.Vishal Maan, Mrs.Smita Maan and Mr.Paritosh Tomar, Advocates in LPA No.193/2015 & LPA No.195/2015.

Headnote:

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Compensation - Public Notice - Delay of 201 days - Petitioners could not make the applications within the stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of compensation - Delay ranges between 21 days to four months - It cannot be held to be inordinate delay so as to defeat the rights of the petitioners - Secretary (L&B) has discretion to extend the period of three months in special circumstances - Applications of the petitioners have been kept pending for a long time of more than 20 years - Delay had explained furnishing the supporting documents - Recommendation Committee failed to consider the same - Single Judge had found fault with the approach adopted by the Committee - It is fit to direct consideration of the applications of the writ petitioners on merits - No justifiable reason to interfere with the relief granted by the Single Judge - Appeals are dismissed.

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4 - Public Notice - Acquisition - Delay - Scope of - Time limit set in the Public Notice - It cannot be held to be conclusive so as to preclude the persons whose lands are acquired from being considered for allotment of the alternative land under the Scheme - Long delay in making the application under the Scheme is a factor to draw an inference that there is no actual need of the alternative plot - It cannot be held that all the applications which are made beyond the period prescribed in the Public Notice shall be rejected as barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT:

Ms.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. Government of NCT of Delhi is the appellant in these appeals preferred against the orders in W.P.(C) No.1368/2014, W.P.(C) No.7123/2013, W.P.(C) No.3579/2014 and W.P.(C) No.2110/2014 respectively.

2. The common question that arises for consideration is whether rejection of the applications of the writ petitioners for allotment of alternative plots under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 merely on the ground of delay in making the applications is sustainable.

3. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs formulated a scheme called “Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi” on 02.05.1961 with the object of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned development of Delhi. The said scheme is being implemented by the GNCTD, Department of Land & Building by inviting applications for grant of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land through press advertisements issued from time to time. The alternative plots are allotted by the Delhi Development Authority on the recommendation of the Recommendation Committee constituted by the Department of Land and Building (Task Force), GNCTD.

4. It may be mentioned that the land for planned development of Delhi was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and awards were passed fixing the compensation for the land acquired. The compensation so awarded was also received by all the writ petitioners. However, the controversy is with regard to allotment of alternative plot as a rehabilitation measure in lieu of the acquired land in terms of the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 (for short “the Scheme”).

5. All the respondents in the present appeals i.e. the writ petitioners made applications requesting allotment of alternative lands under the said Scheme. The said applications were rejected by the Recommendation Committee on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the same, writ petitions were filed and all the writ petitions were allowed by the orders under appeal setting aside the orders of the Recommendation Committee and directing to re-consider the applications on merits. The said orders are under challenge in the present appeals contending inter alia that the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 not being an open-ended scheme where a person whose land has been acquired can apply for alternative plot at any time of his choice, the applications were rightly rejected by the Recommendation Committee and the same warrants no interference by this court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

7. It is not in dispute that no limitation as such is prescribed under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961 (for short „the scheme?) for making an application for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land. However, in terms of the said scheme, the Department of Land & Building, GNCTD while issuing public notices from time to time inviting applications for grant of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land has been notifying the time within which the persons whose land has been acquired may apply for allotment of alternative plot. So far as the cases on hand are concerned, such public notice was issued on 14.09.1987 which reads as under:

“DELHI ADMINISTRATION : DELHI LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI NOTICE For the early disposal of the application for allotment of alternative plot, it has been decided that those persons whose land has been acquired, they may apply their application form within three months from the date of receipt of compensation. This time limit shall be strictly followed by the department and the application received after the expiry of date from receipt of compensation shall not be en































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top