Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Ishwar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 9308 of 2016
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Alternative Plot Allotment - Land Acquisition - 1988 Act, Section 4 - 1988 Act, Section 9 - 2002-03 Act, Award No. 30 - 2015 Letter from Land & Building Department - 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7737 - 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11327
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's land was acquired in phases, and he applied for an alternative plot after each phase. The respondent rejected the application, citing limitation, despite the petitioner's compliance with earlier advice to apply after complete land acquisition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's initial application for alternative allotment was within the specified time and limitation period. The subsequent representations were made in line with the respondent's advice and were not barred by limitation. The court also noted the respondent's request for further information and documents from the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the rejection of the petitioner's application for an alternative plot was justified based on limitation and format compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the subsequent representations by the petitioner were not barred by limitation and were made in line with the respondent's advice. The court also emphasized the respondent's duty to guide and advise applicants on proper format compliance.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directing the Recommendation Committee to reconsider the petitioner's application, provide a personal hearing, and decide the case expeditiously within three months.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for direction to the respondents to quash the order dated 08.09.2016 by which the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land was rejected.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the land of the petitioner was acquired in phases. After the acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the first phase, the petitioner applied for alternative plot vide application dated 03.06.1988. Subsequently, the respondent herein wrote a letter dated 23.03.1992 to the petitioner whereby the petitioner was advised to approach the concerned authority after acquisition of his remaining land.
3. It is submitted that the remaining land of the petitioner was also subsequently acquired and award bearing No 30/2002-03 dated 09.12.2002 was passed. Thus, as per award petitioner received compensation amount after second phase of acquisition of his land.
4. After acquisition of the land of the petitioner in the second phase and in the facts and circumstances of the case that since the entire land of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent, in terms of the directions as given by respondent in its letter dated 23.03.1992, the petitioner herein again approached the respondent. Thus, representations dated 20.02.2004, 02.03.2012, 18.07.2014 and 15.09.2014 were made by the petitioner to the respondent for allotment of alternative plot. Pursuant to his representation, a letter dated 29.06.2015 was received by the petitioner from the Land and Building Department (Alternative Branch). By way of the said letter, respondent directed the petitioner to submit certain other documents.
5. Despite seeking further documents from the petitioner by letter dated 29.06.2015, the respondent herein by order dated 08.09.2016 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the land of the petitioner was acquired in the first phase, application for alternate allotment of land was made by the petitioner within the stipulated time. Since complete land of the petitioner at that point of time had not been acquired, he was advised by the respondent to approach the said authority after acquisition of his complete land. Thus, it is submitted that impugned letter dated 08.09.2016 rejecting the case of the petitioner, is totally illegal.
7. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this Court to the case of his brother Satbir Singh, who was similarly placed as the petitioner. Thus, by letter dated 28.04.2017 issued by the Land and Building Department (Alternative Branch), which contains the Minutes of the meeting held on 20.04.2017 by the Recommendation Committee, the case of the real brother of the petitioner was considered. The documents that were furnished by the brother of the petitioner in the year 2017 were considered by the Recommendation Committee and the brother of the petitioner was allotted alternative land. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner should also be considered on the same lines.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
I. Maman Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7737.
II. Dharam Pal Vs. The Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11327
9. Ld. Counsel for respondent has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. She submits that after the first application by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner had been closed at that point of time, since complete land of the petitioner had not been acquired. Thus, she submits that the petitioner was required to make an application in a proper format for the purposes of alternative allotment of land. Since the petitioner did not make a proper application as per the require
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner's claim for an alternative plot was allowed based on the finding that the petitioner's land was acquired completely, and the co....
Failure to take necessary legal steps can result in the disposal of a petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The court emphasized the importance of considering the documents submitted by the petitioner and granting them an opportunity of hearing in the case of allotment of an alternative plot.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh on the basis of the documents filed by the petitioner in the ....
The court emphasized the right to be heard and the consideration of requisite documents in the process of alternative land allotment.
The court's decision emphasized the need to consider ancestral property in extended abadi areas and directed the respondent authority to reconsider the case for alternate allotment of land.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application for allotment of alternative land should be made within one year of the receipt of compensation as fixed by the Collector, as ....
The exemption of the limitation period granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court during the COVID-19 pandemic can be relied upon to justify the delay in approaching the court.
The owner of the land at the time of its acquisition is entitled to apply for an alternate plot under the policy issued by the public notice dated 27.03.1989. Delay in filing the appeal may not be ju....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
