Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 3033
DELHI HIGH COURT
Suresh Kait, J.
Jangli Ram - Appellant
Versus
GNCT of Delhi and Ors. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 5105/2013
Decided On : 03-09-2014
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1:Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 2:Ms.Mallika Mehndiratta, Adv. for Ms. Vibha Mahajan Seth, Advocate.
For the DDA/ Respondents No. 3.:Mr. Mayank Mikhail Mukherjee, Adv. for Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Alternative Residential Plot - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18, Right to Information Act, 2005 - [Section 18, Right to Information Act, 2005] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which allows for reference in case of dissatisfaction with compensation awarded, and the Right to Information Act, 2005, which was used by the petitioner to seek information regarding the status of the allotment application. The court emphasized the importance of timely and diligent pursuit of cases for alternative plot allotment and the implications of closed cases not being reopened, as per the policy decisions and legal precedents cited.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction for the allotment of an alternative residential plot following the acquisition of land owned by his late wife. The respondent argued that the case was closed and could not be reopened.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the respondent to decide the petitioner's application for alternative residential plot allotment within two months, emphasizing the need for timely decision-making and adherence to eligibility criteria. The petitioner was granted the right to approach an appropriate forum if still aggrieved.
Issues: The main issue was whether a closed case for alternative plot allotment could be reopened, and the petitioner's entitlement to an alternative residential plot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely pursuit of cases for alternative plot allotment and the implications of closed cases not being reopened, as per the policy decisions and legal precedents cited.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondent was directed to decide the petitioner's application for alternative residential plot allotment within two months.
Suresh Kait, J. (Oral):--
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner seeks direction thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to allot an alternative residential plot to the petitioner as per his eligibility.
2. Mr. Sudhanshu Tomar, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Chandri was a Bhoomidar in respect of the agricultural land situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Amherhai, Delhi and said land was acquired for the Planned Development of Delhi vide award bearing No. 48/86-87.
3. Late Smt. Chandri was dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Government, accordingly filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Simultaneously, she also applied for allotment of alternative residential plot by filing application along with all necessary documents, as per the policy of the Government, vide file bearing No. F-31 /(3)-Alt/L&B/33/87.
4. It is further submitted that during her life time, she executed a Registered Will dated 28.05.1996 in favour of the petitioner before the Sub-Registrar Office, Janak Puri, Delhi. She also executed Relinquish Deed dated 12.06.1996 in favour of the petitioner in order to avoid any confusion among the legal heirs. However, Smt. Chandri expired on 08.10.1996. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application for bringing him on record in Execution Petition No. 854/1996 in LAC No. 193/93 on the basis of “Will” and “No Objection Certificate” obtained from other legal heirs. Accordingly, the Ld. Trial Court impleaded the petitioner as the only legal heir in the said Execution Petition.
5. The petitioner also filed an application on 05.02.1997 for intimation to the respondents along with a copy of Payment Certificate, the copy of Will made by Smt. Chandri along with ration card etc. so that the petitioner may be brought on record by respondent No. 1 in place of his wife for allotment of alternative residential plot. Thereafter, the petitioner moved various applications and representations for the aforesaid purposes, however, there was no response from the respondent’s side.
6. On 06.02.2012, the petitioner moved an RTI application before respondent No. 1 and same was replied vide reply dated 30.03.2012 whereby stated that the information sought could not provided as the related file was missing. It was further intimated that as soon as the file is traced, further course of action will be taken by the Branch immediately.
7. Mr. Tomar further submits that since there was no response from the respondent side, petitioner compelled to file the present petition.
8. Respondent No. 1 in its counter-affidavit stated that petitioner was aware that the closed case are not re-opened. As per the records maintained, land of Smt. Chandri was acquired vide award No. 48/86-87 for planned development of Delhi in Village Amverhai. Notification under Section 4 in this respect was issued on 27.01.1984, possession of the land was handed over to the Government on 22.09.1986 and compensation was accordingly paid to Smt. Chandri. The application for allotment of alternative residential plot was submitted on 12.11.1997.
9. The then Joint Secretary, Land and Building Department examined the matter and from the note dated 20.01.1992 it is reflected that the respondent No. 1 was writing to the applicant since 1987. However, there was no reply from her. Accordingly, the said file for allotment of alternative plot was closed.
10. It is admitted that petitioner vide letter dated 05.02.1997 wrote to respondent No. 1 that he came to know that his file for allotment of alternative plot submitted by Smt. Chandri had been closed.
11. Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that once the file is closed on any ground, then it cannot be re-opened. To strengthen his arguments, Ld. Counsel has relied upon a case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Smt. Veerwati,, LPA No. 101/2010 and Govt. of NCT of NCT of Delhi v. Narain Si
