Darshna Devi vs D.D.A. & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4105 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 24th August, 2011.

+             W.P.(C) 6093/2011 & CM No.12317/2011 (for directions)

%      DARSHNA DEVI                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Mr. Rajesh Yadav & Mr. Sumit
                                        Khosla, Advocates.

                                 Versus

       D.D.A. & ORS.                                        ..... Respondents
                          Through:      Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for R-1
                                        DDA.
                                        Mr. Digvijay Rai, Adv. for R-2 AAI.
                                        Mr. Shery Chathly & Mrs. Ferida
                                        Satarawala, Advocates for R-3 NCT.
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 petition impugns the order dated 30th June, 2011 of the

respondent DDA made in pursuance to the direction contained in the order

dated 13th July, 2010 of this Court in W.P.(C) No.9577/2009 earlier

preferred by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims to be a resident of Village Nangal Dewat, land

wherein was acquired for the purposes of development of Airport. During

the pendency of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.481/1982 challenging

the said acquisition, a proposal was mooted for rehabilitation of the persons

displaced owing to acquisition and the challenge to the acquisition was given

up. Subsequently, several applications came to be filed in the said disposed

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

dated 18th May, 2005 issuing certain directions qua allotment of alternative

land.

3. The petitioner claims to be the legal heir of one Sh. Sheonath whose

name was entered as holder of land in the said village. The petitioner is the

widow of one of the two sons of the said Sh. Sheonath. Allotment of

alternative land in lieu of the acquired land of Sh. Sheonath is stated to have

been made in the name of the other son of Sh. Sheonath and in the name of

the son and daughter in law of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that as a

legal heir of Sh. Sheonath, she is also entitled to have her name included in

the alternative plot which has been so allotted.

4. The earlier petition preferred by the petitioner being W.P.(C)

No.9577/2009 (supra) for the same relief was withdrawn by the petitioner

with liberty to approach the DDA and DDA was directed to pass a speaking

order.

5. DDA has in the speaking order dated 30th June, 2011 (supra) stated

that it has made the allotment in accordance with the list of names forwarded

to it and was not concerned with the preparation of the said list.

6. The counsel for the respondent no.2 Airports Authority of India (AAI)

appearing on advance notice has invited attention to order dated 30 th

January, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.569/2009 titled Ishwar Singh Vs. Union of

India holding that the dispute relating "to entitlement of one or another

parties based on their being excluded, where the extent of land is not in

dispute, cannot be gone into writ proceedings" and the aggrieved party has

to agitate their rights in civil proceedings in accordance with law. It was

further held that this Court in the restricted nature of writ jurisdiction cannot

adjudicate assertion of accountability of other owners to a share claimed and

the same constituted a private dispute. The writ petition was thus dismissed

with liberty to approach the Civil Court. He thus contends that the present

petition is not the appropriate remedy for the relief claimed. It is further

stated that it was informed during the hearing of the earlier writ petition that

the son and daughter in law of the petitioner in whose favour conveyance

deed was executed admittedly in the year 2009 have already disposed of the

land. It is thus stated that the purchasers from the son and daughter in law of

the petitioner will also have to be heard.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the aforesaid dicta would

not apply to the facts of the present case. He has invited attention to the

letter dated 21st October, 2010 written by the DDA (before making the order

impugned in this petition) to the Nodal Officer appointed during the hearing

of the applications aforesaid in W.P.(C) No.481/1982 and the reply dated

14th December, 2010 of the said Nodal Officer to the effect that the name of

the son of the petitioner or other son of Sh. Sheonath did not appear in the

list prepared by him. The counsel thus contends that DDA which was to

make the allotment in accordance with the list to be forwarded by the Nodal

Officer had admittedly not made the allotments in accordance with the said

list and the allotment in the name of other son of Sh. Sheonath and in the

name of son and daughter in law of the petitioner is illegal.

8. The aforesaid does not persuade this Court to take a view different

from the view in Ishwar Singh (supra). The claim of the petitioner

essentially is a private claim for a share in a plot of land which has been

allotted in lieu of the acquired land in which the petitioner claims

entitlement/share. There is no dispute as to the extent of the land.

Moreover, the petitioner has in the petition expressly stated that she is not

challenging the allotment of the alternative plot to the extent of 50% share in

the name of other son of Sh. Shiv Nath.

9. Even otherwise, propriety demands that this Bench should follow the

dicta of the coordinate Bench, more so when there is no reason to differ

therefrom.

10. The writ petition is therefore not maintainable and is dismissed with

liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy in law.

No order as to costs.

CM No.12318/2011 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 24, 2011 bs