Amolak Raj vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 627 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) PETITIONER'S land situate in village Tihar was acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for which award No.2177 was made on 11.11.1968. Petitioner's share in the land was 2 bighas 6 biswas. Under the policy for allotment of alternative residential plots to the persons whose land is acquired under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition (Development and Disposal) of Land in Delhi, an application was submitted by the petitioner. Through letter dated 23.12.1988 (annexure P-2) Land & Building Department, Delhi Administration made a recommendation for allotment of a plot of land measuring 250 sq. yards in the West Zone.

(2) The grievance of the petitioner is that alternative plot measuring 800 sq. yards @ Rs.40.00 per sq. yard was also offered to one Gurbax Rai, an evacuee of the same village whose land was also acquired under the same notification for the same public purpose. Petitioner had purchased the land for residential as well as for earning his livelihood. On 3.5.1965 a sale certificate was also issued in his favour by the Government and since under the same Scheme one Gurbax Rai, a person similarly placed was allotted 800 sq. yards, the action of the respondent in making recommendation of only 250 sq. yards was not justified. In this background by filing this petition on 20.11.1995 the petitioner sought directions against the respondents for allotment of a plot of land measuring 800 sq. yards in the West Zone or in the alternative to issue appropriate direction for allotment of land measuring 250 sq. yards, as recommended by the sponsoring authority, in the West Zone and also to allot an industrial plot of 800 sq. yards as per the policy of 1961.

(3) Respondents in their affidavit in reply stated that Land & Building Department, Delhi Government through its letter dated 23.12.1988 made recommendation in favour of the petitioner for allotment of 250 sq. yards of land in West Zone and accordingly the petitioner was allotted a plot of land in Rohini Residential Scheme bearing Plot No.52, Pocket 16, Sector 20, measuring 250 sq. yards. It is stated that the respondent is working on behalf of Land & Building Department for allotment of alternative plots. On receipt of recommendation in favour of one Gurbax Rai he was allotted 800 sq. yards of plot in 1967 @ Rs.40 per sq. yard in Pankha Road Residential Scheme, Janakpuri as per recommendation. In the case of petitioner recommendation was made in the year 1988 for allotment of 250 sq. yards of plot. Case of petitioner was thereafter considered as per the policy duly approved by Lt. Governor of Delhi. He was allotted as per the policy prevalent on the date of allotment, a plot of near about of same size, namely, 200 sq. meters in Rohini, which also falls in the West Zone as per policy of alternative plot.

(4) After respondents filed their reply, they were asked to clarify that according to the petitioner, Rohini Residential Scheme wherein plot of 200 sq. meters had been allotted in petitioner's favour, falls within the North Zone and not in West Zone whereas, according to the respondents, the same for the purpose of allotment of land falls in West Zone. Respondents filed their affidavit and also placed on record a copy of the Scheme as finally approved by the Lt. Governor.

(5) We have heard counsel for the parties and been taken through the record.

(6) The policy for allotment has been modified from time to time. As per the material placed on record, the policy provided for allotment of alternate plots in four different Zones in Delhi, namely, East, North, West and Dwarka. According to the policy recommendees of East Zone were made allotment in East Zone, recommendees of South Zone and Papankalan were accommodated in Dwarka and recommendees of North were allotted in Rohini and Narela and recommendees of West were given land in West Zone. It appears that due to paucity of land the authorities felt that there was no likelihood of any plot being carved out in West and East Zones accordingly a suggestion was mooted to divide city into three zones as follows:

(1)for the recommendees of South and Pappankalan allotments to be made in Dwarka;

(2)for the recommendees of East, North, Rohini and West, allotments to be made in Rohini; and

(3)for the recommendees of Narela, allotments to be made at Narela.

(7) This proposal was examined at various levels and ultimately a decision was taken that all waiting recommendees and new names to be received should be accommodated in Rohini wherein recommendation had been made for allotment of land in West Zone. The Scheme ultimately as approved by the Lt. Governor says:

"I)Division of Nct of Delhi in three parts/zones for the purposes of allotment of alternative plots has been agreed to, which implies that the allotment of alternative plots in future is to be made in the following manner:

A)Recommendees of South & Pappankala : Dwarka.

B)Recommendees of East, North, Rohini & West : Rohini

C)Recommendees of Narela

II)Period for payment of initial amount of 35% (10% earnest money + 25% of the price of the plot) has been increased from 30 days to 60 days. Automatic cancellation clause in case of failure to pay within the stipulated period of 60 days will be operative. But those approaching for extension/regularisation within a grace period of 90 days will be allowed somewhat liberally subject of course to payment of interest @ 18% per annum.

III)The further amount of 50% of the premium will be payable within 60 days.

IV)In the event of failure to make the payment of the initial amount, the allottee shall be disqualified for participating in the future lots for a period of one year. If the recommendee fails to accept three offers, the right to get an alternative allotment of plot shall stand lapsed.

V)The allotment of alternative plots will be made in accordance with the seniority fixed on the basis of taking over possession of the acquired land."

(8) It is not disputed that as per the geographical divisions, Rohini is not located in West Zone but is located in North Zone. However, for the purpose of alternate plot of land as per the policy, which is in vogue, all recommendees, whose lands acquired were located either in East, North or Rohini or West are to be allotted land in Rohini. It appears that for this reason the respondents in their affidavit stated that: "AS per the policy duly approved by Hon'ble Lt. Governor of Delhi and allotted a plot of same size in Rohini, which falls in West Zone as per the policy of alternate allotment."

(9) Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India and others, , held that an individual whose land has been acquired for Planned Development of Delhi has no absolute right to allotment but is liable to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes and that Dda will allot Nazul land to such an individual in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of Nazul Rules. As per the relevant provisions of the Rules of the scheme, allotment is to be made only on receipt of the recommendation and that also subject to availability of plots. Even the recommendations made in petitioner's favour stipulated: "THE allotment of alternative plot is subject to availability of plot with DDA. However, it clearly be noted that this letter does not accord with it legal commitment for allotment of alternative plot."

(10) In Bhagwana V. Union of India, , the Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the ratio of Ramanand's case held that the location where the alternative plot should be allotted whether zone wise or locality wise is a matter of policy. It was held that policy of respondents to allot land or plots zone wise is not arbitrary and does not call for any interference by this Court. In this case also, we do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the allotment made in petitioner's favour as per the policy in vogue wherein the petitioner has been allotted land in Rohini. All recommendations of West under the policy are to be considered for allotment only in Rohini.

(11) Respondents have in their reply affidavit explained the circumstances under which at the relevant time allotment was made in favour of Gurbax Rai, namely, 18.12.1967, much prior the date of even the recommendations made in petitioner's favour. The two cases as such are not similar and there is no case of discrimination.

(12) In view of the above, prayers made in the writ petition cannot be allowed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to make payment of the amount as per demand letter within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the writ order from this Court along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. till date of deposit and any other additional charges for restoration of allotment, if any, and to comply with other formalities, if any. On compliance the petitioner will be duly put in possession of the plot of land within a period of four weeks thereafter.