Delhi High Court
Dr. R.K. Anand vs U.O.I. & Ors. on 24 November, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.932/1988
Decided on 24.11.2011
IN THE MATTER OF
DR. R.K. ANAND ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Yashvir Singh Malhotra, Adv.
versus
U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv. for
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may No
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be No
reported in the Digest?
HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for directions to the respondents to grant allotment of an alternate plot in
terms of the policy of the year 1961 and in supersession of the
amendment in the said policy, vide office orders date 3.4.1986 and
15.9.1986, issued by respondent No.2/ Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his land situated in Village
Toganpur, Delhi was acquired by the respondents and compensation was
paid to him. Apart from the said compensation, the petitioner had also
filed an application dated 24.06.1987 seeking allotment of an alternate
plot of land, which was not allotted to him and instead, respondent
No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi issued a letter dated 24.6.1987 informing the
petitioner that under the existing policy, to be eligible for allotment of an
alternate plot, the land acquired should have been purchased at least 5
years prior to the date of notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') and since in his case the land
had been purchased by him in the year 1981 and the Section 4
notification was issued on 27.01.1984, hence, he had not been found
eligible for allotment of an alternate plot.
3. Counsel for respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi states that
the aforesaid amendment to the policy vide order dated 03.04.1986
passed by respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi regarding allotment of
an alternate plot was tested in two writ petitions registered as
WP(C)Nos.2147/1992 and 2148/1992, which were disposed of by a
Division Bench, vide order dated 15.12.2008, wherein the Court had set
aside a similar order rejecting the application of the petitioners therein for
allotment of an alternate plot. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed
by the Division Bench, respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi had
preferred appeals before the Supreme Court, which have recently been
decided, vide judgment dated 11.10.2011 passed in Civil Appeal
No.8526/2011 entitled 'Delhi Administration through its Secretary vs.
Umrao Singh' and Civil Appeal No.8527/2011 entitled 'Delhi
Administration through its Secretary vs. Ramesh Kumari', a copy of which
is handed over by the counsel and taken on record.
4. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment reveals that the appeals
preferred by respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi were allowed by the
Supreme Court, while setting aside the decision of the Division Bench.
5. Counsel for respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi, therefore,
states that the amendment of policy vide order dated 03.04.1986 passed
by the respondent No.2/Govt. of NCT of Delhi, laying down the eligibility
for consideration for allotment of an alternate plot upon the acquisition of
land of an expropriated owner under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
having been upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing further survives in the
present writ petition.
6. Counsel for the petitioner concedes the aforesaid position.
7. Accordingly, following the decision of the Supreme Court
rendered in the cases of Umrao Singh and Ramesh Kumari (supra), the
present petition is dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
HIMA KOHLI,J
NOVEMBER 24, 2011
sk
