Jagdish & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 1918 Del

15
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                DECIDED ON: 06.05.2009

+                       W.P. (C) 9128/2007


      JAGDISH & ORS                                        ..... Petitioners
                        Through: Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate.

                  versus


      GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                              ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate.

Ms. Manpreet Kaur, for Mr. V.K. Tandon, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

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?

S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. (OPEN COURT)

% The writ petitioners complain of arbitrariness by the respondents in the

manner of allotting alternative plots in lieu of land acquired under the "Large

Scale Acquisition Scheme" in 1959.

2. The brief facts necessary to decide the case are that an area of 7 bigha

3 biswas was acquired under the "large scale acquisition" for planned

development of Delhi. In such cases, the erstwhile Delhi Administration had

framed a policy in 1961 for allotment of an alternative plot over and above

the compensation payable in accordance with law.

3. The possession of the land acquired was taken over by the respondent

authorities on 30.1.1996; the Award being No.18/1997-1998 was made on

1.1.1998 and thereafter compensation was disbursed. The petitioners

applied for alternative plot under the Scheme. The relevant part of the

Scheme which prescribe eligibility and consequent entitlement in respect of

the various plot areas reads as follows: -

"PRESENT NORMS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF THE SIZE OF PLOTS ARE AS UNDER : -

FOR AWARDS ANNOUNCED BEFORE 3.4.1986

1.    Where the area of the land acquired is
      less than 150 Sq. Yds.                         No plot.

2.    Where the area of the land acquired is
      150 Sq. Yds. to one bigha                      40 sq. yds.

3.    Above one bigha to 10 bigha                    250 sq. yds.

4.    Above ten bigha                                400 sq. yds.

FOR AWARDS ANNOUNCED ON OR AFTER 3.4.1986

1.    Where the area of the land acquired is
      less than one bigha                            No plot.

2.    For one bigha                                  40 sq. yds.

3.    Above one bigha up to 5 bigha                  80 sq. yds.

4.    Above 5 bigha to 10 bigha                      150 sq. yds.

5.    Above 10 bigha                                 250 sq. yds."

4. The petitioners contend that each one of them was entitled to 1/7

share of the total extent of the land acquired i.e. (7-3 Bigha), thus working

out to 1.0003 Bigha each. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondents

acted arbitrarily in rounding off the fraction to their disadvantage which has

led to the halving of the plot offered to them. Each petitioner was offered 40

Sq. yds plot. According to them they are entitled to 80 Sq. yds on the basis

of reckoning 1.0003 Bigha as their share of the acquired land; the

respondents treated each one-seventh share as 1.000 Bigha.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that there are no

arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the methodology adopted for

calculating the petitioners' entitlement. It was submitted that the every

petitioner's share of the acquired land was treated as 1 bigha thus ignoring

the last fraction in rounding it off to the nearest one.

6. The above discussion would show that the petitioners' grievance is

regarding the method of calculation; the respondents have not denied their

entitlement of allotment of alternative plot. A glance at the chart, which

entitled land owners whose holdings were acquired would reveal that

allotments were permitted in a tapering scale; those who held 1 bigha were

entitled to 40 Sq. yds, those who held above 1 bigha and up to 5 bigha were

entitled to 80 Sq. yds, and those who held above 5 bighas up to 10 bighas

were entitled to 150 sq. yds; lastly those held above 10 bighas were entitled

to 250 sq. yds plot.

7. To the Court it appears that the entitlements were based on the

acquired land rather than the then who held it. That such interpretation

would be a reasonable method as evident in this case. For instance, each of

the petitioners who happened to be entitled to equal 1/7 share for the

acquired land have been offered 40 Sq. yds. each, which works out to a total

of 280 Sq. yds. On the other hand, a single land owner dispossessed of land

of a like area, or even 8 bighas would be entitled to 150 sq. yds. Considering

the objective of the scheme that the respondents offered each of the

petitioners the minimum what they perceived as the minimum entitlement

on the basis of their share, is in the circumstances, reasonable. The

respondents' interpretation, is not only reasonable, it is liberal and beneficial.

8. The Court sees no infirmity with the approach adopted. The Writ

Petition, therefore, has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) MAY 06, 2009 /vd/