Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 347
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Rajveer Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) 3607 of 2011 & CM. APPL. 7555 of 2011
Decided On : 27-04-2020
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, Mr. Shawrya Jain & Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate, Mr. ManikaTripathy Pandey, Mr. Brahm Kr. Pandey & Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to accept an allotment offer and illegal occupation of land can lead to the refusal of allotment, and no relief can be granted in such cases.
Headnote:
Land Allotment - Property Dispute - [Memorandum, Conveyance Deed, Land Allotment] - The court discussed the Memorandum issued in 1970 providing additional strips of land, the conveyance deed executed in 2010, and the subsequent refusal of allotment by the authorities. The court highlighted the failure of the petitioner's predecessor to accept the allotment offer and the illegal occupation of the land, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought allotment of additional land adjoining their property, which was previously offered but not accepted by the predecessor. The authorities refused the allotment, citing illegal occupation and non-acceptance of the offer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's predecessor did not accept the allotment offer, and the petitioner's illegal occupation of the land led to the refusal of allotment. The court also noted the similarity of the present case with previous cases where similar reliefs were denied.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to the allotment of additional land, which was previously offered but not accepted by the predecessor, and the subsequent refusal of allotment by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's predecessor's failure to accept the allotment offer and the illegal occupation of the land by the petitioner led to the refusal of allotment. The court also relied on previous similar cases where reliefs were denied under similar circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that no relief could be granted as the land belonged to the government, and the petitioner's predecessor had failed to accept the offers given by the government on two occasions.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Brief Facts
1. Three writ petitions being W.P. (C) 8195/2008, W.P. (C) 3271/2008 and W.P. (C) 3607/2011 i.e., the present petition, were filed in this Court in respect of 100 sq. yards of additional land located next to the properties of the Petitioners in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The two writ petitions being W.P. (C) 3271/2008 and W.P. (C) 8195/2008 have already been dismissed vide orders dated 25th February, 2019 and 27th February, 2019 by a ld. Single Judge of this Court. On multiple occasions, this matter was also listed alongside W.P.(C) 8067/2015, which petition was also dismissed by this Court on 30th August, 2019. The present petition is, however, pending consideration.
2. The facts in this case are that on 30th August, 1969, a licence deed was executed in favour of one Mr. Mam Chand in respect of property bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Mr. Mam Chand sold the said property in 1962 in favour of Ms. Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal. After the death of Ms. Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal, a conveyance deed dated 30th June, 2010 was executed by Respondent No.1 i.e., the Union of India (hereinafter, “UOI”) in favour of their legal heirs i.e., Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ram Chander Sharmaand Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma. The Petitioner purchased the property from the said three owners on 12th July, 2010.
3. There were several plots in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi adjacent to which were additional strips of land measuring approximately100 sq. yards that were under the occupation of the respective plot owners. The Petitioners property is one such property.
4. In the year 1970, a Memorandum was issued providing additional strips of land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. yard to owners of corner tenements. A sum of Rs.6,000/- was directed to be deposited by plot holders within 15 days of the issue of the said circular. The plot holders are said to have requested Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., the UOI and the Land and Development Officer (hereinafter, “L&DO”), to either reduce the amount to be deposited or permit the same to be deposited in instalments. No reply was, however, received by the plot holders. Instead, on 31st August, 1981, considering the fact that these additional strips of land were already under the occupation of the respective owners of the adjacent properties, a decision was taken to transfer the said additional strips, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- within six weeks from the issue of the said letter. The predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner i.e., Mr. Banarsi Lal, sought payment of the said amount in instalments which request was rejected vide letter dated 17th October, 1981. Admittedly, the said amount was never paid. The Petitioner thereafter repeatedly approached the Land & Development Officer (hereinafter, “L&DO”) for allotment of the said strip of land, however, the allotment was not made by the L&DO.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
“a. To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to regularize the additional strip of land adjoining to the property bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the name and in favour of the petitioner.
(b). To issue Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ thereby restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner and his family members in respect of the additional strip of land adjoining to the property bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi.
(c). Pass any such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the petitioner.”
Procedural History
6. The present petition was listed from time to time along with the other writ petitions mentioned in paragraph 1. Vide order dated 11th September, 2017, this C
