Shri Sunder Singh (Since ... vs Union Of India & Ors
2008 Latest Caselaw 2292 Del

*                          HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
+                                 WP (C) No.16/1991
                           Judgment reserved on :         2nd December, 2008
                           Judgment pronounced on :          19th December, 2008
              Shri Sunder Singh (since deceased)
              Through his Legal Heir :

               Shri Rajeev Sehrawat
               S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Sehrawat
               R/o Village Tilangpur, Kotla
               Delhi                                                ...Petitioner
                             Through     : Mr. C.B. Verma, Adv.


                           Vs
               Union of India & ORS.                          ....Respondents
                           Through      : Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Adv.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

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?                                                 Yes

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by

the petitioner for writ of certiorari for quashing letter No.F.33(6)/39/86-

L&B/Alt/25121 dated 7th November, 1990 from Delhi Administration, Land &

Building Department, herein respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner's claim

for allotment of alternative residential plot in pursuance of scheme of large

scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi 1961 was rejected.

2. The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest Smt. Har Dai owned and

possessed a fruit garden bearing Khasra No. 52 & 53/2, measuring 11 bighas 3

biswas in the Revenue Estate of Village Rajpur Chawni in the vicinity of Model

Town, Delhi. The respondent has acquired the said garden vide Award No.1290

dated 14th March, 1962 in pursuance of Notification under Section 4 issued on

13th November, 1959 and took the possession. Her entitlement to the

compensation and inadequacy of compensation was decided by the Additional

District Judge, Delhi vide Land Acquisition Case No. 173/1964 and Case No.

43/1967 on 20th February, 1968 and 9th September, 1968 respectively. Against

this order an appeal in the High Court was also dismissed on 20th July, 1976 on

technical grounds.

3. It was contended that only in 1986, the petitioner came to know about

her dismissed appeal in the High Court bearing RFA No.90/1969 which was

afterwards restored back after the delay of about 10 years.

4. An appeal preferred against the order of Additional District Judge dated

9th September, 1968 was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court on April

27, 1993 whereby the compensation was increased to Rs.18,000/- per bigha

with soletium @ 15% and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of taking

over possession till the date of deposit of enhanced amount of compensation.

Admittedly, there was no question of alternative plot of land in the appeal

preferred by the petitioner.

5. It was further stated that it is only around this time that the petitioner

predecessor-in-interest learnt that she was entitled to alternative residential

plot in lieu of her acquired land. Accordingly, an application was made to

respondent No.3 on 11th November, 1986 to the above effect. Several

communications were exchanged from 17th March, 1987 to 7th November,

1990 between the petitioners and the respondent No.3 on the desired needed

information. However the petitioners were informed by the rejection letter

No.F.33(6)/39/86-L&B/Alt./25121 dated 7th November, 1990 that as per the

existing policy, the application filed by the respondent on 11th November, 1986

in pursuance to the Award No.1290 dated 14th March, 1962 was time barred

award and hence the petitioner's case was rejected as he could not apply

timely. The said letter reads as under:-

"DELHI ADMINISTRATION : DELHI LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT :

                                 VIKAS BHAWAN : NEW DELHI

                                                     Dated :    7.11.1990

                  No.F.33(6)/39/86-L&B/Alt.125121



                   To
                            Shri Sunder Singh,
                            S/o Sh. Ram Nath,
                            Vill. Tilangpur Kotla,
                            P.O. Najafgarh,
                            Delhi-110001

                  Sub. :    Allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
                            acquired land.
                  Sir,

With reference to your application dated 11-11-1986 for allotment of alternative plot, I am directed to inform you that your case has been considered as per existing policy on the subject and it is found that your land was acquired vide Award No.1290 dated 14-3-1962 which is TIME BARRED Award. Hence your case has been considered and rejected.

Yours faithfully, Sd/-

(GITA SAGAR) JOINT SECRETARY (L&B)"

6. The scheme of allotment of alternative plots to the ex-propriated land

owners in Delhi is contained in Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,

Letter No. F.37/16/60-Delhi(1) dated 2nd May, 1961 read with Chief

Commissioner's guidelines. The petitioner is challenging the rejection letter

dated 7th November, 1990 on the ground that it is contrary to the provisions of

mass scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi 1961. Under

Clause 8 and 10 of the said scheme there is only the limitation of size and of

person who could become entitled to alternative plots at predetermined rates

and the limitation of time is nowhere prescribed.

7. It is submitted that respondent No.3 never informed that Award or the

application of allotment was time barred and in fact there were

correspondence exchanged between them on respondents request. The

notification under Section 4 and the Award No.1290 pertaining to acquisition

of the petitioner's land are well within the scope of clause 2 (8)(i) of the

scheme of 1961. It is further submitted that the respondents have made

allotment of alternative plots in a number of cases irrespective of time

limitation.

8. In the reply filed by the respondents, it was averred that as per the

policy of allotment of alternative plots, the landowner whose land is acquired

for planned development of Delhi and whose land is placed at the disposal of

the DDA, can be considered for allotment of alternative plot subject to his

satisfying certain conditions besides applying to the competent authority

within time. The purpose of the said policy is to provide a residential house to

the person, who is in need of the same. The application filed by the petitioner

was badly time barred. The compensation was received by the predecessor-in-

interest on 20th June, 1968.

9. It was further averred in the reply that even after receiving the

compensation the application for alternative plot was not filed. The

application was filed after a lapse of 18 years from the date of receiving the

compensation and no explanation or reason is given for this delay. As per the

existing policy the persons, whose land was acquired under Award prior to 15th

November, 1963 should have applied by 15th December, 1963 in accordance

with the press notification issued.

10. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

records.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon various

judgments to support his contention that the application of the petitioner is

time barred and therefore, no relief can be given to him. He has cited the case

of Ramesh Chand Sharma v. Lt. Governor in LPA No.1275/2007 decided on

12th October, 2007, wherein this Court had rejected the writ petition and the

application for allotment of alternative land which was made in 1989, however

the possession was taken in the year 1977. He also strongly relied upon the

case of Ramanand v. Union of India; AIR 1994 Delhi 29 where it was held that

the land owner whose land is acquired does not have the vested right to seek

allotment of alternative plot. In para 28 of the judgment, it was held as follows

:

"As a result of the above discussion, we find that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules."

12. In Chander Bose vs. Union of India & Ors.: 107(2003) DLT 604 it was

observed that if the delay in making the application for alternative plot is

satisfactorily explained, it is not to be rejected. In this regard following

observations are made in para 13 and 14:

"13. In the present case, there is initially a delay from 1961 to 1986 of about 25 years in making the application. No reasons have been disclosed for the same. Similarly there is a further delay from the rejection of the application on 10.6.1988 to filing of the writ petition in 1999 of 11 years. This delay is also unexplained. The only averment made is that the petitioner was unaware of the policy. This can hardly be a ground made out for the condonation of delay in either of the two situations.

14. It is not as if in all cases of delay the application must be rejected. It is always open to an applicant to explain the delay and if the said delay is satisfactorily explained, it will not preclude the case of the petitioner from being considered for allotment. In fact this view has been taken by this Court in C.W.P. No. 4834/1999 Smt. Vidyawati vs. DDA and Another decided on 1.9.2003. However, in the present case there is no valid reason for the delay in making the application."

13. The case of Smt. Sundari Bala vs. Lt. Governor & Ors.; 86(2000) DLT 505

relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent squarely covers the

present case as the application for allotment in this case was also made in

1982 and Award was passed in 1961 for which in the public notice issued by

Delhi Administration, the time limit prescribed for application for allotment of

alternative plot of land was 15th December, 1963 and the application of

petitioner was rejected because it was time barred and no explanation for the

same was made for delay. The relevant paras of this case are referred to

hereinbelow :

"4. Before appreciating the rival contentions of the parties it would be necessary to put on record certain admitted facts in the present writ petition. The land of the petitioner measuring 9 biswas situated in village Kilokari was acquired by the respondent pursuant to which an award was passed on 16.5.1961. The respondent adopted a scheme in 1961. Under Clause 8 of the said scheme anyone whose land has been acquired as a result of the notification mentioned in Clause 8 of the scheme was entitled to apply for allotment of a plot. After the aforesaid acquisition the construction of the petitioner standing on the acquired land was also demolished sometime in April, 1969. The application for allotment of alternative land in lieu of acquired land was filed by the petitioner in the year 1982. Public notice was also issued by the respondents in which applications from persons whose lands were acquired between the period from 1.1.1961 and 15.11.1963 were called for consideration of allotment of alternative land. It was made clear in the said notification that Delhi Administration would not take any responsibility for allotment of alternative plot of land if applications in the aforesaid regard were not received on or before 15.12.1963.

6. In the present case the application of the petitioner was not rejected on the ground that she is not entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of her acquired land. The ground for rejection of her application was that her case was time barred as she was to submit her application before 15.12.1963 whereas she submitted an application in 1982, for the land acquired by award dated 20.10.1961.

Thus there was no explanation at all worth the name for the delay in filing the application. Therefore, there is/was inordinate delay and

laches by petitioner in approaching the Competent Authority for allotment of the alternative plot in lieu of her acquired land. In this connection reference may be made to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jaswant Kaur (supra), wherein this Court dismissed a similar petition on the ground of gross delay and laches. In the said case the petitioner claimed to have made an application for allotment of an alternative plot of land on 17.4.1965, but the respondent DDA denied having received any such application. The writ petition was filed on the basis of the impugned decision communicated by letter dated 3.12.1990 which was taken on the application of the petitioner dated 19.7.1989, which was held to be highly belated. In my considered opinion the facts of the said case are similar to the case in hand and, therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

7. In Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (1996) II SCC 698, the Supreme Court after referring to the ratio laid down in various earlier decisions of the Supreme Court held that laches close the gates of the Courts for a person who approaches the Court belatedly. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the Supreme Court relied upon an earlier decision of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay V. Industrial Development & Investment Co. (P) Ltd., reported in (1996) II SC 501. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991, it was held by the Supreme Court that when the writ petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle of laches or undue delay disentitled the writ petition for discretionary relief under Article 226. Although the aforesaid two decisions were rendered in the context of delay and laches of the petitioner in approaching the High Court under Article 226, I do not see any reason why similar consideration should not be made applicable to a matter where a time limit was fixed for approaching the Authority and doing the needful and the same was done after expiry of period of 13 years."

14. Similarly in WP (C) No.6191/2000 in the case of Shanti Vs. Lt. Governor,

NCT of Delhi decided on 26th March, 2007 where the application for allotment

of alternative plot was made after 18 years and the land was acquired vide

Award No.1174 dated 31st July, 1961, the Writ Petition was rejected.

15. In Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Smt. Vidyawati & Ors. in WA No.154/2004

decided on 22nd December, 2005 where the land was notified under Section 4

on 13th November, 1959 and possession was taken on 27th June, 1969 and the

application for alternative plot of land was made on 19th September, 1996, it

was held as under :

"10. The policy announced by the Appellant was not an open ended one in the sense that an application could be made at any point of time. In any case, there is nothing to show that the application could be made decades after the announcement of the policy.

11. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied upon a public notice that was issued in the newspapers inviting such applications on or before 30th April, 1989. We have gone through this public notice and find that it relates to land acquisition "finalized" between the period 16th November, 1963 and 31st December, 1988. The last date for making an application under the public notice was 30th April, 1989. Admittedly, the respondent made an application only in October, 1996, that is, more than seven years after the issuance of the public notice.

12. The respondent has given absolutely no reason for the inordinate delay in applying for an alternative plot under the policy or even under the public notice. In view of the undue and unexplained delay and laches, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

xxxx xxxx

15. In view of the unexplained delay, and also on merits, we are of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the writ petition dismissed."

16. To the similar effect is the decision of Joginder Kaur vs. UOI and Ors.;

LPA No.431/2003, decided on 21st November, 2003 where this Court rejected

the application where the land was acquired in the year 1984 and application

for allotment was made in 1996.

17. In the case of Sh. Raghbir Singh & Ors. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors;

LPA No.47/2004 application for allotment of alternative plot was made after

a lapse of 14 years and there was no satisfactory explanation for the same. It

was held as under :

"8) In the end, it must be noted that the very object of providing for such alternative plot is a measure of rehabilitation, and thus , a person would ordinarily approach the concerned department immediately for his needs. Such gross delay in approaching clearly indicates that there is no actual need of the plot and for that reason also the Government need not exercise the power to make such allotment as an additional measure of rehabilitation. The failure of the person, who has the right to approach the authority, to so approach within a reasonable time amounts to a waiver of the right and is, thus, not liable to be heard in the matter."

18. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon State of U.P. vs. Pista

Devi; AIR 1988 Supreme Court 2026 wherein it was observed that the noble

principle of providing alternative residential accommodation though existing in

Delhi Development Act 1958, should be extended to land owners of all the

states in India whose land is acquired by Government. Denial of allotment by

the respondents is violative of the statutory provisions of Section 21 of the

Delhi Development Act and the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and

of the Scheme of 1961 formulated by the Government of India.

19. He further relied upon the case of S.B. Kishore v. Union of India; AIR

1991 Supreme Court 90, the Apex Court allowed the application of the

appellant for allotment of alternative plot even after 19 years of acquisition of

land for development and expansion of the area but it was restricted to the

facts of that case and it was specifically mentioned that it shall not be taken as

a precedent.

20. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred the case of Jai Singh

Kanwar vs. Union of India & Ors., 149 (2008) DLT 354. Discussing the scope of

scheme of development of 1961 following observations was made in the

aforementioned judgment :

"6.1 ........In order to study the problem of devising measures to control land value and stabilizing the land prices in Delhi, the Government of India set up a Committee which submitted its report on 6th June 1959. The Chief Commissioner Delhi also submitted a note to the Government of India regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. Thereafter the Government of India framed a scheme titled "Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961." The detailed provisions of the Scheme were set out in the letter dated 2nd May, 1961 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi.

xxxxx xxxxx 6.9 The respondents have placed on record copies of the public notice issued by the Delhi Administration in 1989 informing the public that "all persons in whose case acquisition proceedings have been finalised under the scheme of 'Large Scale acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi for planned development of Delhi between the period of 16th November, 1963 and 31st December 1988, both date inclusive) may apply in the prescribed form along with all requisite enclosures for recommendation of the allotment of an alternative plot of land in lieu of acquired land in accordance with the policy laid down in his behalf by Delhi Administration from time to time so that their application reaches the officer of the Secretary (L &B) D Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, latest by 30.4.1989." Therefore it is clear that even as on 30th April, 1989 the Delhi Administration was prepared to consider applications for the allotment of alternative plot to persons whose lands have been acquired in a 25 year period between 1963 and 1988 for the planned development of Delhi." "6.10. A collective reading of the aforementioned policy changes could be summarized as under :-

(i) Since 2nd May, 1961 there was a policy for allotment of alternative plots to those whose lands were acquired under the Scheme of large scale acquisition for the planned development of Delhi.

(ii) Subject to fulfillment of the specified criteria the acquired land could be disposed of other than by way of public auction, by allotment at pre-determined rates to certain categories of persons which included individuals. There were conditions which included non-transferability for a period of ten years and completion of construction on the plot within two years from the date of allotment.

(iii) The said policy continued notwithstanding the enactment of DD Act. Some of the essential features of the policy were engrafted into the Nazul Rules. The policy therefore took on a statutory character.

(iv) Applications were invited for allotment of alternative plots even as late as April, 1989. Persons whose lands had been acquired during a 25 years period between 1963 and 1988 could apply up to 30th April, 1989 for allotment of alternative plots.

(v) The changes brought about by the office order dated 3rd April, 1986 was that there was a minimum extent of land which had to be acquired (1 bigha) i.e. 1000 sq. yds. approx. before such person could be entitled to alternative plots. As regards the sizes of plot to be

allotted it would be 250 sq. yards where land acquired was more than 10 bighas 150 sq. yards when it was between 5 and 10 bighas and 80 sq. yards when it was between 1 and 5 bighas. However, as clarified by the subsequent office order dated 15th September, 1986 this changed condition applied only to those awards announced on and after 3 rd April, 1986,

(vi) The Office Order dated 30th January, 1987 stipulated that allotment of alternative plots 'may be made even where the possession of the entire land acquired has not been taken.' However while scrutinizing such cases the authorities had to take into consideration whether possession of at least 80% 'for total land of which award has been announced' has been taken. The said Office Order was prospective.

(v) The procedure announced by the DDA incorporating the features of the policy of the government for allotment of alternative plots, setting out the eligibility criteria and procedure made it explicit that an application could be made by even a legal heir f the person who was the recorded owner of the land at the time of acquisition.

11. The government has in the instant case announced an Award for 24 bighas and 16 biswas of land thus completely precluding the land owner Shri Chhaju Singh from dealing with that land thereafter in any manner whatsoever. However, in view of the law explained in Jethmull Bhojraj and the later decisions of this Court, only 7 bighas and 1 biswas can be said to have been 'acquired' within the meaning of the LA Act since possession has been taken of and compensation paid only to that extent. In one sense therefore the entire calim of the petitioner for alternate land, can, if at all, be examined only on the basis that the extent of land 'acquired' is 7 bighas and 1 biswas. The purport of the Office Order dated 3rd April, 1986 was that no claim for an alternative plot for a size larger than that which corresponds to the aforementioned extent of land acquired can be considered for allotment. This condition would, however, not apply here as is evidence from the subsequent Office Order dated 15th September, 1986 which makes it clear that the norms announced by the office order dated 3rd April, 1986 would apply "in respect of all applications received relating to the award on or after 3.4.1986." The second paragraph of the office order dated 15th September, 1986 therefore clarifies that "all applications considered and rejected in pursuance of the office order dated 3.4.1986 will, therefore, now be reopened and considered suo moto and such individual applicants informed

accordingly." The idea was that in cases like the present one where the award was already announced in 1969 the entire question of eligibility for allotment of alternative land was not to be reopened and was to be determined with reference to what was prevailing prior to 3rd April 1986."

21. This case does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present

case as the notification under Section 4 was issued on 13th November, 1959

and Award was passed on 14th March, 1962 and the compensation was

already received by the petitioner. The petitioner could not have claimed the

benefit of the subsequent public notice issued in that behalf by the respondent

for alternative plot of land as the applications were invited from the persons

whose lands had been acquired between 1963 and 1988.

22. The principle question which needs to be considered in the present case

is whether after a period of 18 years, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of

alternative plot of land in pursuance of a scheme of DDA in 1961?

23. The case of Pista Devi (supra) relied upon by the appellants is not

applicable in the facts of the present case as the Delhi Development Authority

did come out with a policy to provide alternative accommodation to people

whose lands have been acquired for the planned development and the issue in

the present case is only with regard to the question whether after decades of

this scheme, the petitioner can avail its benefits on the grounds of ignorance of

policy. As discussed by us above, Jai Singh's case (supra) also does not help the

case of the petitioner and S.B. Kishore's case (supra) was restricted to the facts

of that case and is not applicable to the case in hand.

24. In the instant case, the only explanation for delay is that the petitioner

came to know about her appeal filed against the order of learned Addl. District

Judge bearing RFA No.90/1969 only after about 10 years which was restored

back in 1986 and it is only around this time that the petitioner learnt about the

scheme of alternative plot of land and hence applied for the alternative plot in

1986.

25. We are of the view that where the petitioner is so unconcerned or

unwary of his case pending for compensation, he was not entitled to

alternative plot of land as the scheme is introduced by the government for the

benefit of those people who are in need of the land and if there is actual need

existing of the petitioners, he would not have waited for such a long time to

make an application for allotment and should have been vigilant.

26. Keeping in mind the scope and object of the scheme of 1961, we are of

the view that since the land of the petitioner was acquired vide Award No.1290

dated 14th March, 1962, he should have filed the application for allotment of

alternative plot by 15th December, 1963. Ignorance of the scheme is no ground

to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The application for allotment of

alternative plot was correctly rejected by the respondent vide letter dated 7 th

November, 1990.

It is trite that the time of limitation can be condoned where the delay

has been satisfactorily explained. However, the time of limitation and its

object is meant to close the gates of the disinterested and the ignorant

persons/prosecutor like the petitioner herein. The ignorance of the law/order

cannot become the ground for condoning the same. It needs no mention that

ignorance of law is no excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation

"ignorantia juris non excusat", (Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. V. Govt. Of

U.P., (1975) 4 SCC 378). We are of the view that the plea of ignorance will not

sufficiently explain the delay.

27. No doubt, the scheme of allotment of alternative plots in lieu of

acquired land under "Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of

Land In Delhi" announced by Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide their

letter No.37/16/60-Delhi(i) dated 2nd May, 1961 is in force with effect from 2nd

May, 1961 but it is not an open ended scheme where a person whose land has

been acquired vide Award passed in 1962 can apply for alternative plots any

time he wishes. Though in the scheme the date for application for allotment

of alternative plot was not mentioned but Delhi Administration has issued

public notices from time to time where it was specifically made clear that

persons whose lands were acquired between the period from 1st January, 1961

and 15th November, 1963 has to apply for alternative plot before 15th

December, 1963. But in the present case Notification under Section 4 was

issued on 13th November, 1958 and the Award was passed on 14th March,

1962.

28. We hold that the application under the above said scheme is time

barred and the petitioner was guilty of latches and undue delay. The Delhi

Administration introduced scheme of alternative plot to provide better living

to the person who is in genuine and urgent need of proper accommodation.

The petitioner has applied in 1986 for alternative plot, however, her land was

acquired in 1959. This clearly indicates that the petitioner is not in need of the

land, otherwise he would not have applied after so many years. In view of our

aforesaid discussion on the ground of delay and latches, we find no merit in

the writ petition. The same is hereby dismissed. No costs.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

A.K. SIKRI, J.

December 19, 2008 sa/sd