The Delhi High Court bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan outlined that legal heirs were entitled to apply if the recorded owner had passed away after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
However, the right to apply would be extinguished if the recorded owner had survived for several years after the application deadline expired and had not made any such application.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant's father owned various portions of land in Village Naraina, New Delhi. Some of the lands were acquired by the Government through awards in 1962 and 1976, with possession taken accordingly. The Appellant’s father received compensation for the acquired land in January 1963 and July 1976, respectively.
Disputes arose regarding the apportionment of compensation for the land acquired in 1976, which were resolved by the Court of Additional District Judges in April 1979. The Appellant’s father passed away in November 1985 without applying for an alternate plot.
In 1961, the Government of NCT formulated a scheme to provide alternative plots to agriculturists affected by land acquisitions. In March 1988, a public notice was issued, informing eligible individuals to apply for an alternate plot based on the scheme's provisions. The notice stated that applications could be submitted until April 30, 1989. The issues in the appeal revolve around this crucial public notice.
Brief Background:
In September 2003, the Appellant sent a letter to the Respondent, inquiring about the status of his application and providing additional documentation confirming the compensation received by his father and the required land details. Despite this, the Appellant's application remained unprocessed.
A complaint with the Lieutenant Governor and requested a report from Respondent no. 1. The Appellant complied and provided the requested information and documents more than once and thereafter, a writ petition was filed which was dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was asserted that the Appellant is one of the two surviving legal heirs after his father's demise. On April 28, 1989, the Petitioner submitted an application seeking an alternate plot of land in exchange for his father's acquired lands in 1962 and 1976. However, the application was returned by the Land Acquisition Collector (hereinafter referred to as “LAC”) because it lacked specific khasra numbers and ward numbers.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the main controversy in the appeal was whether the Respondents had the authority to restrict the application of the Scheme solely to recorded owners through Public Notice.
The Scheme aimed to provide rehabilitation for agriculturists whose lands were acquired for Delhi's development, and it should be construed liberally. Although there were no strict timelines, it did not mean the Scheme was open-ended, and acts were expected to be done within a reasonable period. Since the Appellant's father passed away on November 9, 1985, without making an application during his lifetime, the time for application had expired.
Therefore, the Court held that the legal heirs were entitled to apply if the recorded owner died after the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. However, if the recorded owner survived for several years after the application deadline expired and did not apply, the right to apply for an alternate plot would be extinguished. The High Court found no legal basis for the Appellant's contention that the Respondents could not restrict the Scheme. The Government had the authority to alter its policy as long as it did not violate the Constitution or any laws. In this case, the Government authorised the relaxation of conditions only for recorded owners. It was not necessary to relax conditions for all categories of persons as long as it did not violate the equal protection clause.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court accordingly, dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Jai Singh v Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case No.: Letter Patent Appeal No. 124 of 2018
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocates for Appellant: Advs. Mr Pratyush Sharma
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr Rajneesh Sharma, Mr Monika Tripathy, Mr Ashutosh Kaushik, Mr C. Shah and Mr Manish Vashist
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source :
