IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Narender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 2971 of 2022
Decided On : 23-05-2023
Allotment - Alternative Plot - - [No specific act section referenced] - The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's claim for alternate allotment, remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) (North) for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioner to be granted an opportunity to appear before the concerned authority.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting their application for allotment of an alternative plot, citing that the petitioner's wife already owned a plot and that the petitioner owned land in extended abadi.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not own any other land when the land in question was acquired and that both the petitioner and their wife did not own any property/house/residential plot/flat.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's application for an alternative plot based on the ownership of land by the petitioner's wife and the petitioner's ownership of land in extended abadi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the evidence provided by the petitioner and their wife through affidavits, which established that they did not own any other property. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, directing the authorities to grant the petitioner an opportunity to appear and submit documents for consideration.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order denying the petitioner's claim for alternate allotment, remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) (North) for fresh consideration, and directed the petitioner to be granted an opportunity to appear before the concerned authority.
JUDGMENT
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing]
Mini Pushkarna, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed with prayer for quashing of order dated 30.12.2021 passed by the respondent No.3, SDM (HQ) District North Delhi, Alternative Branch, Office at DM Office Complex, Alipur, Delhi-110036. By way of the said order, the application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot has been rejected.
2. Perusal of the order dated 30.12.2021 shows that the application of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot has been rejected on the ground that the wife of the petitioner has acquired a property in her own name. Thus, it was recorded that since wife of the petitioner already owned a plot in her name on the date when the allotment was to be issued, the petitioner was not entitled to alternate plot.
3. The application was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner owns land in extended abadi.
4. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that land which was owned by the petitioner, was sold by registered sale deed in the year 2001 whereas, acquisition of the land took place in the year 2005 and final possession was taken on 06.10.2005.
5. A perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that the petitioner did not own any other land when the land in question of the petitioner was acquired.
6. Affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner dated 24.02.2022 wherein it has been stated that the petitioner does not own any house/residential plot/flat in or out of village abadi either in his own name or in the name of his wife.
7. The affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is reproduced as under:
"AFFIDAVIT
I, Sh. Narender Kumar S/o Govind Ram aged about 49 years R/o House No. 454, Village Barwala, Delhi-110039 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
-
1. That I am the deponent in the captioned Writ Petition and thus well conversant with the facts of the case and competent to swear & file this affidavit.
2. That I do not own any house/residential plot/flat in or out of village abadi either in my own name or in my dependent relation's name or in my wife's name, including unmarried children. That neither am I nor my wife or my unmarried children are member of any Co-operative Housing Society.
3. That I do not even own a house in Village Barwala, Delhi and currently I along with my wife and two children are residing in Village Barwala, Delhi at the house of my elder brother namely Sh. Ashok Kumar which is owned and is in the name of Smt. Dayawati who is the wife of my elder brother Sh. Ashok Kumar.
VERIFICATION:
Verified at New Delhi on this 24th day of Feb, 2022 that the contents of above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. "
8. Similarly, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the wife of the petitioner, wherein it is categorically stated that the wife of the petitioner also does not own any property/house/residential plot/flat in or out of village abadi either in her own name or in the name of any dependent.
9. Affidavit filed on behalf of the wife of the petitioner is reproduced as follows:
"AFFIDAVIT
I, Smt. Savita W/o Sh. Narender Kumar aged about 46 years R/o House No. 454, Village Barwala, Delhi-110039 do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1. That the deponent is the wife of the Petitioner in the captioned petition. That I am a housewife and neither employed nor working.
2. That I do not own any house/residential plot/flat in or out of village abadi either in my own name or in my dependent relation 's name or in my husband's name, including unmarried children. That neither am I nor my husband or my unmarried children are member of any Co-operative Housing Society.
3. That I do not even own a house in Village Barwala, Delhi and currently I along with my husband and two children are residing in Village Barwala, Delhi at the house of my husband's elder brother namely Sh. Ashok Kumar which is ow
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for authorities to consider the evidence provided by the petitioner and grant them an opportunity to appear and submit documents fo....
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.
Fair consideration of evidence and granting the petitioner an opportunity to present their case before the Scrutiny Committee.
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 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 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 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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.