Panchayatghar Nirman Samiti & ... vs Union Of India & Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3132 Del

*                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Writ Petition (Civil) No.5400/2007

%                          Date of Decision: 12.08.2009

Panchayatghar Nirman Samiti & Others            .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.Rakesh Mahajan, Mr. Gautam
                             Anand and Mr.Sheetesh Khanna,
                             Advocates

                                    Versus

Union of India & others                               .... Respondents
                      Through Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for the DDA.
                              Ms.Shawarna, Advocate for Ms.Monica
                              Garg, Advocate for the respondent/UOI.
                              Mr.Sanjay Poddar and Mr.Mukesh
                              Kumar, Advocates for the respondent
                              No.3.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may be             YES
         allowed to see the judgment?
2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               NO
3.       Whether the judgment should be reported in           NO
         the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioners seek a direction to respondent No.2 to make an

allotment of alternative accommodation in favor of petitioners in lieu of

the land acquired vide award No.12/2005-2006/DC (N-W) dated 5th

August, 2005 in village Barwala without any development having

undertaken or carried out thereon within a definite minimum possible

time frame on the term settled with due regard to the price at which the

said land has been acquired from the petitioners.

2. Petitioner No.1 is alleged to be a Samiti of residents of Panna

Harnand Village Barwala whose lands have been acquired and

petitioners No.2 to 76 are its members. The petitioners have contended

that consolidation proceedings were conducted in the year 1953-1954

and since then the members of the families of the holders of the land

have increased manifold. It is also contended that the requirement of

land for residential accommodation for right holder has also increased

and requirement of abadi land has also increased correspondingly.

3. The petitioner asserted that the entire agricultural land

measuring 6129 bighas 10 biswas of petitioners and other right holders

of village Barwala had been acquired by respondent No.1 under the

scheme of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in

Delhi for purposes of Rohini Residential Scheme under the public

purpose of plan development vide notification dated

11(19)2001/L&B/LA 20112 dated 21st February, 2009 under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and award No.12/2005-2006/DC (N-

W) dated 5th August, 2005. According to the petitioners, the land

holders have received compensation as per the award and some of the

references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for

enhancement of compensation are also pending.

4. The allegation of the petitioners is that the land has been

acquired by respondent No.1 and has been transferred to respondent

No.2 for its development and disposal as per Rohini Residential

Scheme; however, no steps have been taken by its physical development

by respondent No.2. According to the petitioners they have applied for

allotment of alternative plots vide different applications, the date and

diary numbers of which are given in para 11 of the petition.

5. According to the petitioners, they have applied under Section 21

of DDA Act and, therefore, respondent No.2 has the power to dispose of

the said land without undertaking or carrying out any development

thereon. In the circumstances, it is claimed that as per the policy of the

Government the petitioners are entitled for alternative plots in lieu of

their acquired land, however, same has not been done despite the

demand raised by them and thus the petitioners have filed the present

petition.

6. The petition is opposed by the respondent No.3 contending inter

alia that the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties as each of the

petitioners have independent and distinct causes of action and they

cannot file a common petition seeking for joint allotment of alternative

plot. It was, however, admitted that the land in question was acquired

under Section 4 vide Notification dated 21st February, 2003 followed by

award No.12/2005-2006/DC (N-W). According to the respondent No.3,

under the Land Acquisition Act after the allotment of land the

petitioners do not have a vested right for alternative plot and the

reliance has been placed on Ramanand v. Union of India, AIR 1994

Delhi 29 holding that such persons have no vested right to claim

alternative plot. It is contended that though the application is filed

under Section 22, however, the petitioners are mis-stating that they

have sought allotment under Section 21 of the DDA Act. It is contended

that the applications were not filed under section 21 of the DDA Act and

therefore, the petitioners have not filed the copies of the applications

despite the opportunity granted to them.

7. The respondent No.3 categorically contended that the government

has formulated the policy to consider the cases of such persons whose

land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi and is placed

at the disposal of the DDA under Section 22 of the DDA Act. According

to the said respondent, each case is required to be considered

independently in the facts and circumstances individual cases. It is

contended that the petitioners have not given their relevant details

which would have entitled them for allotment of the land in accordance

with the rules and regulations. The respondent No.3 asserted that the

applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of

their acquired land in the year 2006 have to be considered as per the

guidelines/instructions given by Central Vigilance Commission to

process the cases on first-cum-first-served basis vide circular

No.40/11/06. The said respondent is alleged to have decided the cases

up to the year 2000 and the applications of the petitioners shall also be

processed at their turn. In the circumstances, it is contended that the

petition is pre-matured and is liable to be dismissed. The petition is

also contested by Delhi Development Authority/respondent no.2

contending that the petitioners seek allotment without recommendation

letters from the respondent no.3 on the plea that Section 21 of the DDA

Act provides for the same. Section 21 stipulates that the acquired land

can be disposed of even without undertaking or carrying out any

development thereon which is not admitted by the respondent no.2. It is

further pleaded that the allotment of alternative plots has to be done on

the basis of the policy framed and according to the recommendation

letters issued to the eligible persons and thereafter by processing the

cases as recommended. It is pleaded that the petitioners do not have a

vested right for an alternative allotment and the role of DDA come in the

picture only after receipt of recommendation letters from the Land &

Building Department.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in detail. On 7th

January, 2009, it was stated before the Court that the applications for

allotment of plot in lieu of the land which was acquired and placed at

the disposal of the DDA as Najrul land, were filed by the petitioners in

terms of Section 22 of the DDA Act and not in accordance with Section

21 of the said Act. This fact was denied by the counsel for the

petitioners and time was sought to place on record copies of the

applications filed by the petitioners or on their behalf for allotment of

plots. Despite two weeks' time granted at the request of the counsel for

petitioners on 16th March, 2009, the copies of the applications were not

filed. On 16th March, 2009 again counsel for the petitioners had sought

time to place on record copies of the applications made by the

petitioners. The counsel was also directed to satisfy the court as to

whether Section 21 of the Act is applicable to the case of the petitioners

especially when the reliefs sought by the petitioners are for allotment of

undeveloped land in village Barwala, Delhi.

9. Despite the opportunity and the time granted by this Court, the

copies of the applications have not been filed by the petitioners. In the

circumstances the plea of the petitioners that the applications were filed

by the petitioners under section 21 of the DDA Act cannot be accepted.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is otherwise also unable to

explain that the petitioners are entitled for allotment under section21 of

the said act.

10. It cannot be dispute that Sections 21 and 22 govern development

and disposal of land by the DDA. Section 21 provides for development

and disposal of land acquired by the Central Government and transfer

to the DDA, whereas Section 22 regulates the manner in which DDA

shall deal with the Najrul land which is placed at the disposal of the

DDA for the purpose of development. In AIR 1994 Delhi 29, Ramanand

v. Union of India and others, the Full Bench had held 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 alternative plot for residential purposes and that the DDA

may allot Najrul land to such an individual in conformity with the plans

and subject to other provisions of the Najrul land rules.

11. The petitioners have admitted that the land was acquired for the

public purpose for the planned development for Delhi for Rohini

Residential Scheme. Since the land was acquired for the planned

development of Delhi, the petitioners will not have an absolute right for

allotment, however, their applications for allotment of alterative plots

can be considered by the respondent no.3 along with applications of

others whose lands have been acquired in Delhi for the planned

development according to the seniority of the applications.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also contended that

the applications of various persons whose lands have been acquired for

the planned development are considered by the respondent No.3

according to the seniority of their applications, i.e., the date on which

the applications are filed. The copies of the applications of the

petitioners have not been filed by them despite the opportunity granted

by the court, however, since it is admitted by the respondent no.3 that

the applications were filed, therefore, such application which have been

sent by the petitioners which are available with the respondent no.3

shall be considered according to the seniority of the applications.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the

writ petition be treated as an application and their representation on

behalf of the petitioners and the same be considered by respondent

No.2/DDA for allotment of alternative plot. This has been specifically

pleaded that in order to decide whether a particular petitioner is

entitled for allotment of alternative plot various factors are to be

considered which have not been disclosed by the petitioners in the

present writ petition nor copies of the applications filed by them have

been filed on the basis of which it could be ascertained whether on the

recommendation, if any, of respondent No.3, the petitioners shall be

entitled for an alternative plot.

14. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioners for direction to

respondent No.2 to consider their applications cannot be accepted.

However, since the respondent No.3 has contended that the

applications of the petitioners shall be considered according to the

seniority which is on the basis of the date of the application, the

respondent No.3, therefore, shall be liable to consider the applications

of petitioners No.2 to 76 expeditiously according to their seniority.

15. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to consider and dispose of the

applications of petitioners No.2 to 76 expeditiously according to their

seniority which is on the basis of the date of the application. The

prayer of the petitioners, however, to treat the writ petition as a

representation/application to respondent No.2 is declined. The writ

petition is disposed of in terms hereof. Parties are, however, left to bear

their own costs.

August 12, 2009                                   ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev'