Sh. Hanmat Singh And Ors. vs Nodal Officer
2005 Latest Caselaw 805 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The above applications have been filed by the applicants/objectors aggrieved by the consolidated list prepared, by the Nodal Officer appointed vide orders dated 28.4.2004, of eligible persons entitled for alternate plots in lieu of their land holdings acquired in Village Nangal Dewat. Objections have now been filed in the writ petition which had been disposed of vide orders dated 2nd August, 2001.

2. For a proper appreciation and understanding of nature of objections and the scope thereof, it would be necessary to recapitulate, in brief, the facts leading to the filing of these objections:-

(i) On 16th February, 1982, nearly 366 residents of Village Nangal Dewat filed the above writ petition seeking quashing of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of their lands and structures. The petitioners sought restraint on the making and publication of the award and interference with possession of their lands and structures situated in Village Abadi in Village Nangal Dewat.

(ii) Notice in the writ petition was issued and the court granted a limited stay of operation of the award to enable the Union of India to consider the question of rehabilitation of the residents of Village Nangal Dewat within three months. During the course of proceedings in the writ petition, between 1986 to 2001, the court was informed that the acquisition had been done for the public purposes of extension of Palam Airport, International Section. Further that the Government had initiated a scheme for the rehabilitation of the residents, whose land was acquired in Village Nangal Devat and 713 Bighas and 2 biswas of land of land was being acquired in Rung Puri Village for rehabilitation.

(ii) On 2nd August, 2001, petitioners gave up their challenge to the acquisition and confined their relief to the rehabilitation of persons, whose land had been acquired at an alternative place. Counsel for International Airport Authority of India, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta informed the court that alternate land has been acquired for allotment to persons whose land was acquired for the expansion of the International Airport. Further that all persons whose names appear in the award for acquisition of the land, would be allotted alternate land in accordance with terms of the Scheme being framed within six months. Based on the above assurance, the writ petition was disposed of. It may be noted that a review petition bearing no.9312/2001 has been filed by petitioner no.262 namely Narain Singh S/o Richpal Singh claiming that the counsel who made the statement on 2nd August, 2001, was not authorised to do so. The review applicant was asked to furnish particulars of his land acquired with details and the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of review applicant. The said application had remained pending all this while and is being separately decided.

(iv) There was tardy progress in the implementation of the Rehabilitation Scheme and the court was constrained to give directions from time to time to officials/authorities such as SDM, International Authority of India and Delhi Development Authority.

Meetings were also held under the aegis of Lt. Governor and the scheme in terms of the minutes of the meeting held with Lt. Governor on 9th August, 2002 was directed to be made. Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to make list of persons entitled to alternate plots specifying the category to which they are entitled. It was urged by the respondent that a list of all those persons who were in possession of the land with area in their possession as on the date of acquisition had been prepared. It as said that naksha munta zamin had been prepared by the Revenue Authorities indicating the names of persons in possession on the date of acquisition. The Tehsildar was also directed vide orders passed 29th October, 2003 to decide the applications file by the legal heirs for substitution. International Airport Authority of India was required to place on record the documents for categorisation of plots. The court directed in case of a deceased, whose land was acquired and whose L.Rs had applied for mutuation, to be included in the draw of lots, but the actual allotment for alternate plot would be made only after the application for mutation is decided by the Tehsildar.

(v) Despite the directions being given from time to time, the matter was not getting concluded and various applications were made in the disposed of writ petition seeking directions for implementation for the rehabilitation scheme. On 28th April, 2004, considering the lack of progress despite the Airport Authority of India claiming that it had carried out some exercise to find out the eligibility of different persons in different categories, the court came to the conclusion that the matter in controversy needed to be coordinated by a senior Officer to be assisted by the parties. Accordingly, Mr. S.S. Kanawat, ADM was appointed as the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer in terms of the order dated 28th April, 2004 was given the following tasks:-

a) Prepare a list of eligible persons for allotment considering the objections of different parties. Tehsildar was to assist the Nodal Officer;

b) Objections to the erroneous inclusion from the eligibility/allotment list to be considered by the Nodal Officer;

c) Nodal Officer empowered to take a decision in respect of issues arising in drawing up of list;

d) Issues of mutation in favor of legal heirs. Time granted to the parties to file the necessary documents within 15 days with the Tehsildar, failing which he would decide the issue on the basis of documents on record;

e) Issue of eligiblity of a particular category of persons, the Nodal Officer was required to prepare a list, leaving the question of eligibility of that category to be considered by the court;

f) No impleadment or intervention applications were to be filed before the court as the parties had been granted permission to approach the Nodal Officer.

3. The Nodal Officer presented a list of eligible persons numbering 316 copies of which were given to the parties. Harijan and Backward Jan Kalyan Samiti made a grievance on 16th December, 2004 in court that the names of the persons forming part of the Samiti have not been included in the list. The Nodal Officer clarified that since Gaon Sabha allotted land to the community, the alternate land has to be allotted to the community as a group and not to individuals wherever allotment was made to individuals by Gaon Sabha, they would be considered for alternate allotment. What remained to be determined was the entitlement of persons to plot and size thereof. My learned predecessor in his order dated 16th December, 2004 also noted " Learned counsel for private parties state that they would like to examine the consolidated list and if any individuals have any objections, they may be permitted to file in court, but the exercise aforesaid may be carried out on so that at least the people found eligible are not made to wait." It is the aforesaid observation which has led to filing of the spate of the applications and objections numbering 82 which are being disposed of by this order.

4. On 14th January, 2005, when some of these objections were listed, it was directed that all those who have been found eligible by the Nodal Officer would participate in the draw of lots to be carried out by DDA. The allotment, if any, would be subject to further orders as may be passed in this case. Regarding objections filed by different applicants, counsel submitted that they would offer certain suggestions, if found feasible by the court for acceptance, failing which applicants be left to avail of independent legal remedies as available. This opportunity was being given in view of the order dated 16th December, 2004 which mentioned regarding filing of objections to the report of the Nodal Officer. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate was asked to assist the court as an amices Curiae.

5. On 1st February, 2005, counsel for the petitioner, respondents and the objectors submitted that they would like to sit with the Nodal Officer and amices Curiae to understand the basis of the list of eligible 316 allottees. Respondents were required to explain as to how when the award mentioned 689 persons, the eligibility had been confined only to 316 persons.

6. The respondents apprised the court on 24th February, 2005 that the list as prepared by the Nodal Officer was tallied with naksha munta zamin to narrow down the number of eligible persons whose entitlement was not in dispute. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, counsel for Airport Authority of India, submits that there are 167 eligible persons in respect of whom, there is no doubt regarding their entitlement and the category of plot to which they are entitled. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for Airport Authority of India was directed to furnish the list to DDA. Further draw of lots to include the total number of plots falling in a particular category to ensure that there was no favored or preferential allotment qua location.

7. Some of the applicants/objectors claim that where the original land owner had died and whose name appeared in the award, all the Lrs were entitled to joint allotment. It was urged that in some cases more than one allotment had been made to the Rs on the basis of their separate residence, while in others, L.Rs have been given single joint allotment. These are the issues which are to be decided by the Nodal Officer.

8. Mr. Sethi, amices Curiae and Mr. Gupta submitted that they had proposed draft guidelines or criteria to be adopted for the purpose of considering entitlement and eligibility of individuals entitled to alternate plots. Copies were made available to the various applicants/intervenors. Parties were also given opportunity to offer their suggestions or objections to the proposed guidelines or criteria. The applicants/ objectors were asked to give their objections and suggestions to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate, representing few of petitioners, who would then consolidate the same and make copies available to Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta and Mr. Sethi, amices Curiae. The guidelines/ criteria, taking into account the suggestions on behalf of the objectors, response thereto of the respondents-AAI and the amices Curiae, were considered.

9. The main concern of numerous applicants/ objectors was with regard to the cases:-

(a) Where the name of the objector/ claimant does not appear in the records as on 28.4.1972. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the Nodal Officer should consider the Will or bequest, if any, produced with "No Objection Certificate" and process the case for alternate allotment of eligible heirs in terms of the Will. This was not found acceptable as a person whose name does not appear in the records as on 28th April, 1972, must seek a declaration from the competent court regarding his entitlement and title even though probate may not be necessary in such a case. The limited jurisdiction intended to be conferred on the Nodal Officer by an order passed in writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to determination of the entitlement and title to the land in quest on based on the law of succession. For all such cases or similar cases, DDA and Airport Authority of India would keep in abeyance the claim for the allotment of plot, pending determination of entitlement/ title by the Competent Court.

(b) The second kind of cases were those where the name of the original holder appears in the records as on 28.4.1972 but has expired subsequent to 28.4.1972 and application(s) by the LRs for mutation is/ are pending, such cases would be considered for joint allotment to LRs based on their eligibility and entitlement of the original holders as regards the extent of land and the category.

(c) Another class of objections sought to be raised on behalf of applicants/objectors, is where the land was owned by the father while independent structures were raised by his sons and legal representatives. The entitlement of alternate plot was being determined on the basis of the extent of land held by the original land holder.

Mr. Bhushan submitted that there was distinctiveness of ownership of structures and the land underneath. However, these were not mutated, since mutation was not permissible in the old abadi in the revenue records. As such the legal heirs, who despite owning separate and distinctive structures and even when their names appeared for compensation are deprived of the benefit of individual entitlement of alternative plots based on the proportionate land falling underneath their respective structures.

Mr. Ravider Sethi submitted that the ownership of the land was of the original land holders and the entitlement has to be determined with reference to the extent of land held by them. Joint ownership could be granted to the persons who are shown as owners of the structures in respect of the land underneath. However, it would be a joint allotment of the alternate plot. After hearing the counsel for applicants/ objectors, respondent and amices Curiae the consensus which emerged for this class of cases was that legal heirs/ applicants would be eligible for allotment of individual alternate plots upon the following conditions being satisfied:-

(i) Name of the legal heirs appear separately in the survey report and Naksha Munta Zamin in respect of distinct holdings;

(ii) Legal heirs who have raised separate structures in separate holdings for which they are given separate compensation in the award.

(d) It was also agreed that no claim for allotment of alternate plot based on a sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will, after 28.4.1972, would be accepted and entertained by the Nodal Officer.

10. As noted earlier counsel for the applicants/ objectors, AAI and the amices Curiae were heard at length on the proposed guidelines/ criteria for allotment of alternate plots. The guidelines/ criteria to be followed by the Nodal Officer have been settled as per Schedule-I.

11. In view of the guidelines and the criteria as settled for alternate allotment, the objectors/applicants if they fall within the said guidelines or criteria may approach the Nodal Officer for inclusion of their names as an eligible alternate allottee or for determination of the size of their plots based on the above criteria. The said letters, requests or applications may be filed before the Nodal Officer within 15 days from today stating clearly their entitlement in terms of the guidelines/criteria. In case the Nodal Officer rejects any application for mutation or application for allotment, it would be for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in the appropriate proceedings and not by any CMs in this disposed of writ petition. Registry is directed not to entertain any such application against the decision of the Nodal Officer and/ or either for impleadment or intervention or directions on the above subject matter in this writ petition.

12. The Bench has been informed that present Nodal Officer Shri S.S. Kanawat, Addl. District Magistrate, South-West District, has been transferred to the Excise Department, NCT of Delhi and as such is not available for discharging the functions and remaining work as Nodal Officer. In his place Mr. A.K. Singh, Addl. District Magistrate, South District, is appointed as the Nodal Officer to deal with the applications for allotment of alternate plots, in terms of the order passed by this Court.

13. Before parting with the case I must record my appreciation for the commendable work done by Shri S.S. Kanawat, Nodal Officer, as also the useful assistance rendered by Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate.

The aforesaid applications stand disposed of in terms of above directions.