Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi vs Jai Kishan Aggarwal (Blind) & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2114 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                 LPA 228/2009 & CM Nos. 7228-30/2009


        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                           ..... Appellant
                       Through:       Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.

                      versus


        JAI KISHAN AGGARWAL (BLIND) & ANR.            ..... Respondents
                       Through:  None.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL
                      ORDER

% 18.05.2009

1. The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned

single Judge dated 17th September, 2007. Briefly stated the facts of

the case are that the respondents (original petitioners in the writ

petition) purchased a plot of land bearing No. 216, measuring 200 sq.

yards, forming a part of Khasra No. 95 in Village Kondli, Shahdara,

Delhi in 1972. It is averred that respondent No. 1 is a blind person.

The property was acquired for the purpose of construction of STP at

Kondli. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and

the possession of the land was taken over. The respondents had

approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C)

No.155/98 asking for quashing of the award or in the alternative for

allotment of a plot in lieu of the acquired land. This Court disposed

of the said writ petition directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to

decide the respondents' request for allotment of an alternative plot.

Applications were made by the respondents to Land & Building

Department for allotment of an alternative plot. The Government of

NCT of Delhi rejected the application of the respondents on the

ground that only those persons were eligible for allotment of

alternative plot, where the acquired land is not less than 150 sq. yds.

in respect of award announced prior to 3rd April, 1986. As per the

said decision, since the total land purchased by the respondents was

only 200 sq. yds. and their individual share being only 100 sq. yds.,

they were not eligible for allotment of an alternative plot.

2. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant

(original respondent in the writ petition) had not denied that both the

respondents were joint owners of the acquired land measuring 200

sq. yds. It is also not denied that they had approached the Court

with a joint petition earlier. The respondents had approached the

appellant for alternative land. The copies of the forms filled by both

the respondents were lodged with the appellant simultaneously. The

learned single Judge has correctly observed that a facial reading of

the form can cause confusion as it does not provide for joint

applicants. These circumstances, as per the learned single Judge,

supported the version of the respondents that they made separate

applications though on the same date on being advised to do so.

Their applications were also considered by the appellant together.

Nevertheless, the appellant chose to ignore the reality that both the

respondents had sailed together right from the beginning and

continued to do so later.

3. We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the

findings of the that the respondents were together when the land was

purchased, when it was acquired and award published and still latter

when previous writ petition was filed and disposed of. In these

circumstances, the learned single Judge has rightly held that

characterizing their individual entitlement on the basis of undivided

share as 100 sq. yds. was unreasonable. As owners of an undivided

plot, both of them in law had equal rights in respect of acquired land.

Thus, the learned single Judge was absolutely correct in observing

that considering the fact that acquisition was of an undivided plot,

the appellant could not treat it as divided and deny the respondents

their eligibility. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the

respondents for an alternative plot was rightly held to be arbitrary

and unreasonable.

4. We find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge to

warrant any interference by us. It may also be pertinent to mention

here that there is delay of 533 days in filing of the present appeal.

The appeal is liable to be dismissed. All pending applications stand

disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 18, 2009 sb