Madhavi Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 3543 Del

22.
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 3172/2008

                                 Date of decision: 3rd September, 2009

       MADHAVI DEVI                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through Mr. Manoj Singh, Advocate.

                     versus

       GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI                 ..... Respondent
                       Through Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

       1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
       allowed to see the judgment?
       2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported
       in the Digest ?

                                 ORDER

%

1. The petitioner, Ms. Madhavi Devi, claims that she had purchased

200 square yards of land bearing plot No. 273 in khasra No. 46 in village

Kondli on 18th April, 1974 for Rs.1,500/-on the basis of power of attorney

executed by the recorded bhumidar. The land in question was already

acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 vide award No.

84/A/72-73.

2. The petitioner on 30th June, 1981 and again on 19th October, 1981

filed an application for allotment of alternative land. She made a

statement that a claim had been made by her for payment of W.P. (C) No. 3172/2008 Page 1 compensation for the acquired land.

3. By letter dated 13th June, 1986, the petitioner's husband was

informed that the case for alternative land has been rejected since the

land acquired was less than 1 bigha.

4. The petitioner made another representation and by letter dated 10 th

September, 1987 she was asked to file an application in the prescribed

form in duplicate along with documents like sale deed, compensation and

affidavit. The petitioner filed an application in the prescribed form but her

application was not accepted and vide letter dated 14th August, 1991 she

was informed that the land purchased by the petitioner was through power

of attorney and as such the petitioner was not the lawful owner of the

plot. This decision was reiterated again by the respondents by letter dated

28th December, 1991. The letter dated 28th December, 1991 further states

that as per the policy only recorded owners of the acquired land prior to

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were entitled

to allotment of alternative plot.

5. The petitioner has filed the present petition in 2008 seeking

allotment of alternative land. She challenges rejection of her request for

allotment of alternative land vide letters dated 13th June, 1986, 14th

August, 1991 and 28th December, 1991. She relies upon the judgment

passed by the learned Additional District Judge in LAC No. 45/1993 dated

15th October, 1998 deciding reference under Section 30/31 of the Land

W.P. (C) No. 3172/2008 Page 2 Acquisition Act, 1894 holding that the petitioner was entitled to

compensation for the acquired land. It is accordingly submitted that delay

and laches should not come in the way of the petitioner as she is entitled

to allotment of alternative land. Reference is also made to representations

made by the petitioner but it is admitted that the said representations

have been rejected throughout. My attention in this regard is drawn to

letter dated 30th April, 2003, whereby Government of NCT of Delhi, Land

and Building Department, had informed the petitioner that she was not

entitled to allotment of alternative land as she was not the recorded owner

of the acquired land prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

6. The writ petition is clearly bad for delay and laches. As noted

above, the application for allotment of alternative land was rejected way

back in 1989 and then again in 1991. The said rejection was on account

of the fact that the petitioner was not the recorded owner of the acquired

land prior to the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. Decision in the reference proceedings under Section

30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 did not result in any change or

modification in the position. The petitioner never became the recorded

owner in the revenue record. The only question decided in the reference

under Section 30/31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 related to payment

of claim for compensation. The respondents vide letter dated 30th April,

W.P. (C) No. 3172/2008 Page 3 2003 had again informed the petitioner that she was not entitled to

alternative land in lieu of acquired land as she was not recorded owner

prior to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. The delay between 2003 and 2008 is again not

explained.

7. A Division Bench of this Court in Gulshan versus Government of

NCT of Delhi, 2008 (101) DRJ 661 (DB) has held that a person, who is

not recorded owner of the land prior to the date of issue of notification

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not entitled to

alternative plot under the policy/scheme. Admittedly, the land was

acquired pursuant to award No. 84/A/72-73 in the year 1972-73. The

petitioner claims that she had purchased the said land after the award on

18th April, 1974. The petitioner was admittedly not the bhumidar of the

land when it was acquired. Subsequent purchaser is not entitled to

alternative allotment.

The writ petition accordingly has no merit and is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       SEPTEMBER 03, 2009
       VKR




W.P. (C) No. 3172/2008                                                Page 4