Narain Singh vs Union Of India And Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3962 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 16th August, 2011.

+               W.P.(C) 2338/2010 & CM No.4705/2010 (for stay)

%      NARAIN SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Anup Kumar Sinha, Adv.

                                 Versus

    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                  ..... Respondents
                 Through: Mr. Digvijay Rai, Adv. for R-1 & 2.
                 Mr. Amit Mehra & Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocates
                           for R-4 DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may               Not necessary
       be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?              Not necessary

3.     Whether the judgment should be reported             Not necessary
       in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioner seeks mandamus for allotment of residential plot in lieu

of land acquired in Village-Nangal Devat.

2. The land in Village Nangal Devat was acquired for expansion and

development of the Indira Gandhi International Airport. The said

acquisition was challenged in W.P.(C) No.481/1982. However on 2nd

August, 2001 the petitioners therein gave up the challenge to the acquisition

and confined the relief to rehabilitation at an alternative place, of persons

whose land had been acquired. On the assurance of the counsel for the

Airports Authority of India (AAI) that such rehabilitation was under

consideration, the writ petition was disposed of.

3. However several applications/objections came to be filed even after

disposal of W.P.(C) No.481/1982 and which were disposed of vide order

dated 18th May, 2005 laying down certain guidelines/criteria for allotment of

alternative land.

4. The grievance of the petitioner herein is that though his case for

allotment of alternative plot was considered and purportedly disposed of

vide communication dated 30th October, 2007/5th November, 2007 but his

case was not expressly considered therein. From the said communication, it

is shown that while at one place it is stated that the addressees of the

communication of whom petitioner is one, are eligible, at another place it is

stated that the addressees had not been found eligible for allotment of

alternative plot. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the latter part

applies only to persons, reasons for whose ineligibility are expressly given

and since no reason has been given for the petitioner being not eligible for

allotment of alternative plot, he is so eligible.

5. Notice of the petition was issued and pleadings have been completed.

6. The counsel for the respondent AAI has stated that the acquisition in

the present case was by Notification dated 28th April, 1972 under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act. He has further stated that the petitioner herein

belongs to the Harijan Community; that there was some land in the village in

the name of the said community; however pursuant to an out of Court

settlement, the claims of the members of the said community for allotment

of alternative plot in lieu of the land in the name of the community were

agreed to be considered. He has in this regard invited attention to the report

dated 17th July, 2007 of the Committee constituted to look into the eligibility

of 122 persons for allotment of alternative plots and it is shown therefrom

that it was decided that only such of the affected persons who were in

possession of community land and whose names figured in the allotment list

of the year 1958 would be eligible for allotment of alternative land.

7. The grandfather of the petitioner herein admittedly acquired such

community land only in the year 1961 and hence the question of his name

figuring in the allotment list of the year 1958 does not arise.

8. The counsel for the respondent AAI has further invited attention to the

judgment dated 18th March, 2008 in W.P.(C) No.6249/2007 titled Jai Singh

Vs. UOI and other connected writ petitions and has contended that the

present controversy is squarely covered thereby. This Court in the said

judgment held that if 1958 survey list has been taken as the basis or the outer

limit for making allotments, such policy decision could not be interfered

with by this Court. The counsel has however fairly stated that intra court

appeals against the said judgment have been preferred and are admitted for

regular hearing before the Division Bench.

9. Per contra, the counsel for the petitioner relying on the

judgment/order dated 18th May, 2005 (supra) has contended that since the

grandfather of the petitioner had acquired the land by sale deed in the year

1961 i.e. prior to 28th April, 1972, he would be entitled to an alternative

allotment. It is contended that the sole criteria in the order dated 18 th May,

2005 was of 28th April, 1972.

10. The counsel for the respondent AAI has rightly contended that the

cases as discussed in the order dated 18th May, 2005 would not apply to the

petitioner. He has invited attention to para 7 of the judgment dated 18th

March, 2008 supra to contend that the persons in occupation of community

land and individual owners of the land constituted two separate distinct

classes. It is thus stated that what has been observed in the order dated 18 th

May, 2005 with respect to individual land, cannot apply to the petitioner

whose claim for allotment of alternative land was for reason of being in

occupation of community land. It is further stated that much water has

flown after the order dated 18th May, 2005.

11. The counsel for the petitioner of course contends that the grandfather

of the petitioner in the present case had sale deed of the year 1961 in his

favour. It is however inexplicable, how the sale deed could be executed with

respect to community land. He has further invited attention to Airport

Authority of India Vs. Karan Singh 141 (2007) DLT 277 particularly to

para 30 thereof but which again pertained to individual owners.

12. It is thus found that the matter in controversy is covered by the

judgment dated 18th March, 2008 and not by the earlier judgments. The

distinction carved out of the sale deed in favour of grandfather of the

petitioner, is not found to make any difference. A Coordinate Bench having

dealt with the matter and the intra court appeal whereagainst is pending, it is

not deemed expedient to make a fresh adjudication and it is expedient that

the matter is considered by the Division Bench if the petitioner desires so.

The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 16, 2011 bs