Delhi High Court
M/S. Bassi Builders vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 September, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) 740/1990
M/S. BASSI BUILDERS ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
WP(C) 769/1990
M/S. KRISHNA CONSTRUCTION CO. ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
WP(C) 770/1990
M/S. KAMAL CONSTRUCTION CO. ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
WP(C) 812/1990
M/S. SHIV KUMAR WASAL & CO. ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
WP(C) 2379/1990
SMT. KUSUM LATA ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
W.P.(C) No.740/1990 Page No.1 of 7
WP(C) 2380/1990
MR.AKSHAYA KUMAR ........Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ........ Respondents
Present: Mr.Raghuinder Verma, Adv. for petitioners.
Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Adv. for Union of India
DATE OF DECISION:
% 04.09.2008
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CM No.12105/2008 in WP(C) 740/1990, CM No.12101/2008 in WP(C)
769/1990, CM No.12102/2008 in WP(C) 770/1990, CM
No.12136/2008 in WP(C) 812/1990, CM No.12129/2008 in WP(C)
2379/1990 and CM No.12128/2008 in WP(C) 2380/1990
All above captioned writ petitions were dismissed for
non-prosecution on 18.8.2008. For the reasons stated in each
application we hold that sufficient cause has been shown for non-
appearance on behalf of the respective petitioner on 18.8.2008.
The applications are allowed. Order dated 18.8.2008 is recalled.
Each writ petition is restored for hearing.
WP(C) 740/1990, WP(C) 769/1990, WP(C) 770/1990, WP(C)
812/1990, WP(C) 2379/1990 and WP(C) 2380/1990
1. Heard for disposal.
2. The petitioners pray that directions may be issued to the
respondents to allot a residential plot to them in Delhi.
3. The petitioners of WP(C) 769/1990, WP(C) 2379/1990
and WP(C) 2380/1990 had purchased only 1 bigha land each in the
revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi @Rangpuri. The petitioners
of the other writ petitions had purchased 1 bigha and 2 biswa land
each in said village.
4. The purchases have been made by all petitioners on
different dates in the month of September 1985.
5. A declaration under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
1894 was issued on 23.12.1986. A large chunk of land of village
Malikpur Kohi @Rangpuri was proposed to be acquired. After
following the procedure prescribed by law under the Land
Acquisition Act 1894, lands were acquired, including those of the
petitioners.
6. The acquisition was for expansion of Palam Airport. The
acquired lands were placed directly under the jurisdiction of CPWD
which in turn handed over the same to the Airport Authority.
7. The claim in the writ petitions is predicated on a policy
decision of the Government of India requiring a residential plot to be
allotted to a person whose agricultural land in Delhi is acquired.
8. Though not pleaded in any writ petition the policy in
question is called The Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961.
9. In the writ petitions, reliance has been placed upon
minutes of a meeting dated 22.5.1986 which inter alia records as
under:-
"(4) ALLOTMENT OF ALTERNATIVE PLOTS IN RESPECT OF
LAND ACQUIRED FOR NON-PLAN SCHEMES:
After a detailed discussion it was felt that there is no
justification for allowing this discrimination in allotment of
the plan and non-plan acquisitions. It was therefore
decided that in future allotment of plots on priority basis at
cost price to eligible persons in the very zone or near the
zone from where the land has been acquired. The criteria
about the eligibility and size of the plots will be governed
by the standing Rules relating to allotment of alternative
plots with suitable modification."
10. To appreciate the minutes of the meeting dated
22.5.1986 sufficient would it be to record that the meeting took
place in the chamber of the Lt.Governor of Delhi. It considered the
dichotomy in Delhi where only those persons were being alloted
alternative plots whose lands were acquired for the planned
development of Delhi and placed at the disposal of DDA vis-a-vis
those whose lands were acquired for non-planned purposes and not
placed at the disposal of the DDA. But no formal directive was
thereafter issued.
11. In a nutshell, case of the petitioners is that under the
Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 and the minutes of the meeting
dated 22.5.1986, they are entitled for allotment of an alternative
plot.
12. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res
integra. Various decisions have been pronounced on the subject.
The latest decision is the one pronounced by us today dismissing
WP(C) No.2349/1988 Mehar Chand & Ors vs. Union of India.
13. In a nutshell, with reference to the decision of a Full
Bench of this Court reported as AIR 1994 Delhi 29 Ramanand vs.
Union of India & Ors. where the impact of the DDA (Disposal of
Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 was considered with reference to
The Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 it has been held that with
the promulgation of the Nazul Land Rules 1981, provisions of The
Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 would no longer be applicable
and entitlement to an alternative plot would be only as per the
Nazul Land Rules 1981. Noting that the Nazul Land Rules 1981
required allotment of an alternative plot only to said persons whose
lands, upon acquisition, were placed at the disposal of the DDA, it
has been held that no other persons would be entitled to an
alternative plot other than under the Nazul Land Rules 1981.
Meaning thereby, that all those who were affected by acquisitions
post 1981, entitlement of an alternative plot has to be considered
only as per the Nazul Land Rules 1961.
14. Incidently it may be noted that the decision in Mehar
Chand's case (supra) related to acquisition of land for expansion of
Palam Airport. Though, lands subject matter of said writ petition
were comprised in the revenue estate of village Shahabad
Mohmmadpur.
15. The decision in Mehar Chand's case (supra) also notes a
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 2007 (5) SCC
231 Ravi Khullar & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court noted with approval the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court in Ramanand's case (supra).
16. It would be interesting to note that the decision in Ravi
Khullar's case (supra) relate to lands comprised in village
Mahipalpur, Nangal Devat and Malikpur Kohi @Rangpuri. Writ
petitioners of said petitions who were staking a claim for an
alternative plot whose lands in village Malikpur Kohi @ Ranpuri were
acquired for expansion of the Palam Airport had lost the battle right
up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
17. The minutes of the meeting dated 22.5.1986 are thus
neither here nor there for the reason no policy decision can be
contrary to statutory rules. The second reason is that the minutes
of the meeting never culminated into any formal policy being
notified.
18. The writ petitions have no merit.
19. Before concluding it would be not out of place to record
that it appears to be a case where the petitioners came to know of
the proposed acquisition and went about purchasing 1 bigha and 2
biswa land each. One fails to understand as to what agricultural
activity could be carried out on such uneconomic holdings. The
petitioners appear to have resorted to a predatory tactic, that upon
acquisition of the land purchased by them they would reap the
benefit of developed plots alloted to them at concessional rates.
20. The Rule is discharged.
21. The writ petitions are dismissed.
22. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SUNIL GAUR, J.
September 04, 2008
dk
