15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON: 06.05.2009
+ W.P. (C) 9128/2007
JAGDISH & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate.
Ms. Manpreet Kaur, for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT) % The writ petitioners complain of arbitrariness by the respondents in the manner of allotting alternative plots in lieu of land acquired under the "Large Scale Acquisition Scheme" in 1959.
2. The brief facts necessary to decide the case are that an area of 7 bigha 3 biswas was acquired under the "large scale acquisition" for planned development of Delhi. In such cases, the erstwhile Delhi Administration had WP (C) 9128-07 Page 1 of 4 framed a policy in 1961 for allotment of an alternative plot over and above the compensation payable in accordance with law.
3. The possession of the land acquired was taken over by the respondent authorities on 30.1.1996; the Award being No.18/1997-1998 was made on 1.1.1998 and thereafter compensation was disbursed. The petitioners applied for alternative plot under the Scheme. The relevant part of the Scheme which prescribe eligibility and consequent entitlement in respect of the various plot areas reads as follows: -
"PRESENT NORMS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF THE SIZE OF PLOTS ARE AS UNDER : -
FOR AWARDS ANNOUNCED BEFORE 3.4.1986
1. Where the area of the land acquired is
less than 150 Sq. Yds. No plot.
2. Where the area of the land acquired is
150 Sq. Yds. to one bigha 40 sq. yds.
3. Above one bigha to 10 bigha 250 sq. yds.
4. Above ten bigha 400 sq. yds.
FOR AWARDS ANNOUNCED ON OR AFTER 3.4.1986
1. Where the area of the land acquired is
less than one bigha No plot.
2. For one bigha 40 sq. yds.
3. Above one bigha up to 5 bigha 80 sq. yds.
4. Above 5 bigha to 10 bigha 150 sq. yds.
5. Above 10 bigha 250 sq. yds."
4. The petitioners contend that each one of them was entitled to 1/7 share of the total extent of the land acquired i.e. (7-3 Bigha), thus working out to 1.0003 Bigha each. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents WP (C) 9128-07 Page 2 of 4 acted arbitrarily in rounding off the fraction to their disadvantage which has led to the halving of the plot offered to them. Each petitioner was offered 40 Sq. yds plot. According to them they are entitled to 80 Sq. yds on the basis of reckoning 1.0003 Bigha as their share of the acquired land; the respondents treated each one-seventh share as 1.000 Bigha.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the methodology adopted for calculating the petitioners' entitlement. It was submitted that the every petitioner's share of the acquired land was treated as 1 bigha thus ignoring the last fraction in rounding it off to the nearest one.
6. The above discussion would show that the petitioners' grievance is regarding the method of calculation; the respondents have not denied their entitlement of allotment of alternative plot. A glance at the chart, which entitled land owners whose holdings were acquired would reveal that allotments were permitted in a tapering scale; those who held 1 bigha were entitled to 40 Sq. yds, those who held above 1 bigha and up to 5 bigha were entitled to 80 Sq. yds, and those who held above 5 bighas up to 10 bighas were entitled to 150 sq. yds; lastly those held above 10 bighas were entitled to 250 sq. yds plot.
7. To the Court it appears that the entitlements were based on the acquired land rather than the then who held it. That such interpretation would be a reasonable method as evident in this case. For instance, each of the petitioners who happened to be entitled to equal 1/7 share for the WP (C) 9128-07 Page 3 of 4 acquired land have been offered 40 Sq. yds. each, which works out to a total of 280 Sq. yds. On the other hand, a single land owner dispossessed of land of a like area, or even 8 bighas would be entitled to 150 sq. yds. Considering the objective of the scheme that the respondents offered each of the petitioners the minimum what they perceived as the minimum entitlement on the basis of their share, is in the circumstances, reasonable. The respondents' interpretation, is not only reasonable, it is liberal and beneficial.
8. The Court sees no infirmity with the approach adopted. The Writ Petition, therefore, has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) MAY 06, 2009 /vd/ WP (C) 9128-07 Page 4 of 4