Back
2018 Supreme(Del) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
REKHA PALLI, J.
LALIT KUMAR & ORS. - Petitioners
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI - Respondent
W.P.(C) No.5647 of 2014
Decided On : 02-05-2018
For the Petitioner: Mr.Sumit Bansal, Adv. with Ms.Sumi Anand, Adv. & Mr.Ankit Banati, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. with Ms.Jyoti Tyagi, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of specific documents in determining the nature of acquired land and its eligibility for alternate plot allotment under the Rehabilitation Policy.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Rehabilitation Policy - Land Acquisition Act, Section 4 - 23, 28, 31 - The court discussed the nature of the acquired land and its eligibility for alternate plot allotment under the Rehabilitation Policy. It highlighted the importance of specific documents such as possession proceedings, written statements, and reports in determining the nature of the land. The court emphasized that the Rehabilitation Policy applied only to agricultural land and concluded that the acquired land was indeed agricultural, quashing the impugned order and reviving the earlier order for allotment of an alternate plot.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners sought quashing of the order rejecting their request for allotment of an alternate plot after their land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act. The Respondent contended that the land was being used for residential purposes, making the Petitioners ineligible for an alternate plot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the acquired land was agricultural in nature, as evidenced by specific documents such as possession proceedings and written statements. It concluded that the Respondent's rejection of the Petitioners' application was erroneous and directed the processing of their case for alternate plot allotment.
Issues: Dispute over the nature of the acquired land and its eligibility for alternate plot allotment under the Rehabilitation Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of specific documents in determining the nature of the acquired land and highlighted that the Rehabilitation Policy applied only to agricultural land. It also noted the estoppel of the Respondent in contending otherwise, given their previous assertion that there was no construction on the Petitioners' land.
Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the Petitioners' application was quashed, and the earlier order for allotment of an alternate plot was revived, with directions for processing the case within three months and furnishing any additional documents as needed.
REKHA PALLI, J.
1. Vide the present petition, the Petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 23rd July, 2014, issued by the Respondent, whereby the Petitioners request for allotment of alternate plot had been rejected.
2. The brief facts as set out in the petition are that the Petitioners’ mother Smt. Simla Devi, was the owner and in possession of Khasra No.53/16 in Village Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi, admeasuring an area of 1 Bigha 4 Biswas. The aforesaid land was acquired pursuant to a Notification bearing number F.11(16)/93/L&B/LA issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on 23rd December, 1994. The physical possession of the land was taken by the Respondent from Smt.Simla Devi on 24th January, 1995 in the presence of its various officials. Upon the Award being pronounced, Smt.Simla Devi received the compensation amount on 6th March, 1997 and on 1st July, 1998, applied for an alternative plot in accordance with the Rehabilitation Policy of the Respondent, providing for grant of alternate plots to those agriculturalists whose land was acquired by the Government. Even though Petitioners are the legal representatives of Smt. Simla Devi, for the sake of convenience any reference to the Petitioners hereinafter would include Smt. Simla Devi as and when the context so requires.
3. It appears that the aforesaid application was initially rejected by the Respondent on 29th October, 1999 on the ground of being time barred. Aggrieved by the rejection of her application, a representation was submitted by Smt. Simla Devi, which was kept pending. The Petitioners had then approached this Court and vide order dated 20th October, 2003, this Court had directed the Respondent to decide the Petitioners’ representation.
4. The Petitioners’ representation was, thereafter, rejected compelling them to once again approach this Court by way of WP (C) No.16425/2004 and vide order dated 28th March, 2007, this Court while quashing the Respondent’s order dated 29th October, 1999 rejecting the Petitioners’ application for alternate plot, further directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioners’ application on its merits within two months and in any event, not later than 31st May, 2007.
5. The aforesaid order was challenged by the Respondent by way of LPA No.1209/07, which was dismissed vide order dated 28th July, 2008, whereafter the Respondent sought a report in respect of the Petitioners application. The said report, while enumerating various relevant factors, also had a column for built- up area, if any. A perusal of the report shows that the aforesaid column contains a specific endorsement “Nil” in respect of built-up area on the Petitioners land. The Petitioners were, thereafter, asked to submit various documents from time to time and finally, vide letter dated 13th June, 2013, Smt. Simla Devi’s request for grant of alternate plot was acceded to and she was informed that the Recommendation Committee in its meeting held on 25th April, 2013, had allotted a plot measuring 80 square yards to her. It appears that before the said letter dated 13.06.2013 was issued, Smt.Simla Devi had already expired and her husband had issued a Relinquishment Deed in favour of the three children, who are the Petitioners in the present petition. While the Petitioners were anxiously waiting for the allotment of a plot in accordance with the recommendations made on 25th April, 2013, the Respondent in supersession of its letter dated 13th June, 2013, issued the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2014, whereby the Petitioners were informed that Smt.Simla Devi was not eligible for allotment of alternate plot as it had now been found that the acquired land was being used by her for residential purposes and not for agricultural activities, which was a pre-condition for allotment of alternate plot. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have approached this Court, impugning the order dated 23rd July, 2014.
6. In support of his pe
