Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Del) 4770

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Raghubir Singh – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary Land And Building – Respondent
LPA 595 of 2022
Decided On : 03-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Lalit Kumar Yadav and Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Rajneesh Sharma and Mr. Siddharth Panda, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conditions for grant of alternative land under the Scheme of 1961 must be strictly adhered to, and the application for alternative land should have been made within one year from the completion of the acquisition process.

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Alternative Land - Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Scheme of 1961 - [Land Acquisition Act] - [Section 4] - [Summary: The court discussed the conditions for grant of alternative land under the Scheme of 1961, emphasizing the requirement that the applicant must be the recorded owner of the acquired land, must have received compensation, and must not own any residential property in Delhi. The court highlighted that the applicant's share must not be less than 1 bigha, and the application for alternative land should have been made within one year from the completion of the acquisition process. The court emphasized that the registered owner's legal heirs relinquishing their shares did not entitle the appellant to alternative land, as the application would be barred by time. The court upheld the rejection of the appellant's application for alternative land. ]
Fact of the Case:

The land of the Appellant was acquired under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Appellant's application for allotment of alternative land was rejected by the Committee, and subsequent legal actions were taken by the Appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant, leading to the instant LPA.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the rejection of the appellant's application for alternative land was justified, as the appellant's share did not meet the prescribed requirement. The court also emphasized that the relinquishment deed executed by the legal heirs did not entitle the appellant to alternative land, as the application would be barred by time.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Appellant was entitled to alternative land under the Scheme evolved by the Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's individual claim for alternative land was rightly rejected, and the relinquishment deed executed by the legal heirs did not entitle the appellant to alternative land, as the application would be barred by time.
Final Decision: The LPA was dismissed, and the court upheld the rejection of the appellant's application for alternative land.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. Aggrieved by the Judgment dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 3485/2017, the writ petitioner has filed the instant LPA before this Court.

2. Shorn of details, facts leading to the filing of the instant LPA have been summarised as under:

a) The land of the Appellant was acquired in village Kakrola vide notification dated 02.04.1993 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the possession of the land was taken over. The compensation was paid to the Appellant on 16.06.1999. The application for allotment of alternative land was submitted by the Appellant. The application of the Appellant was considered by the Committee on 27.12.2012, and application of the Appellant was rejected on the ground that the Appellant was having 1/7th share against acquired land of 4 bighas and 12 biswas, which is less than 1 bigha, and therefore, as per the policy, the Appellant did not fulfil the requirement for consideration for allotment of alternative land in lieu of acquired land. This decision of the Committee was conveyed to the Appellant vide office letter dated 06.02.2013.

b) Thereafter, all the surviving members then relinquished their share vide Relinquishment Deed dated 23.08.2014 in favour of the Appellant to increase his share beyond 1 bigha and consequently, become eligible for allotment of alternative land as per the policy of the Respondents.

c) Pursuant to Relinquishment Deed dated 23.08.2014, the Appellant once again approached the Respondents for allotment of alternative land stating that the remaining legal heirs and members having shares in the land have relinquished their respective shares in favour of Appellant and hence now there is no impediment in allotment of alternative land in the favour of Appellant as his share is now more than 1 Bigha.

d) Since no response was forthcoming from the Respondents, the Appellant served legal notice dated 22.09.2014 to consider the case of the Appellant. Failure to take any action by the Respondents, the Appellant filed a writ petition bearing W.P. (C) 7839/2014 seeking a direction to the Respondents herein to respond to the legal notice dated 22.09.2014. The said writ petition was disposed vide Order dated 14.11.2014 wherein the Respondents were directed to consider the legal notice of the Appellant within a period of two months. Since the Order dated 14.11.2014 was not complied with, the Appellant herein filed a contempt petition bearing CONT.CAS(C) No. 357/2015. The application of the Appellant was rejected vide letter dated 29.02.2016, and therefore, the said contempt petition was withdrawn by the Appellant with liberty to challenge the letter dated 29.02.2016.

e) Thereafter, the Appellant got the relinquishment deed executed on 15.09.2016 by all interested parties in favour of the Appellant and got the same registered on 17.09.2016. After this, the Appellant served another legal notice dated 08.10.2016 to the Respondents, annexing the registered Relinquishment Deed for allotment of alternative land.

f) Since no response was forthcoming, the Appellant, thereafter, approached this Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) 3485/2017. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the ground on which the application of the Appellant was rejected by the Respondents was that Appellant holds 1/7 share of the acquired land which comes out to be less than 1 bigha and hence as per the policy of the Respondents any applicant having share less than 1 bigha of land is not entitled to allotment of alternative land. The learned Single Judge held that the Scheme of 1961 is only targeted to those individuals, villagers, farmers etc. who may be rendered homeless or landless upon their land being acquired by the Government, or any Authority under it, for the purposes of development and the Government had evolved a criteria for those persons who owns land more than 1 bigha and have lost their homes or their agricultural lands, which