Kissan Sangharsh Samiti Khera ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 2099 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                W.P.(C) 1716/2012 and CM 3797/2012


                                                    Decided on: 27.03.2012

IN THE MATTER OF

KISSAN SANGHARSH SAMITI KHERA KHURD AND ANR.       ..... Petitioners
                  Through: Dr. Surat Singh, Advocate with
                  Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Advocate

                    versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.               .... Respondents
                   Through: Ms. Pooja Bahuguna, Advocate for
                   Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for R-1/DDA.
                   Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate with Ms. K.K.
                   Kiran Pathak, Advocate for R-2/GNCTD.
                   Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Advocate with Mr. C.S.
                   Chauhan, Advocate for R-3/UOI.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is filed by petitioner No.1/Association

claiming to be representing the interest of 396 farmers of village Khera

Khurd, whose land is stated to have been acquired by the government as

per Award No.5/2005-06 dated 10.06.2005, under large scale acquisition of

land in Delhi.

2. Counsel for respondent No.2/Land & Building Department, Govt.

of NCT of Delhi questions the maintainability of the present petition on the

ground that petitioner No.1/Association is not a registered body and,

therefore, is not competent to file the present writ petition as a

representative body. He further states that in the earlier writ petition filed

by petitioner No.2 and others for the same relief, registered as W.P.(C)

692/2012 entitled Azad Singh & Ors. vs. DDA & Ors., counsel for the

petitioners herein, who was also the counsel for the petitioners therein, had

sought leave to withdraw the said writ petition while reserving the right of

each of the 384 petitioners to file separate petitions with regard to their

respective grievances against the respondents authorities. Vide order dated

03.02.2012, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn while

granting leave to the petitioners therein, as prayed for (Annexure P-1). He

submits that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioners have filed the

present collective petition, when petitioner No.1/Association is not even

authorized to do so being an unregistered body.

3. Counsel for the petitioners responds by stating that the

petitioners are not in a financially sound position to file individual petitions

for allotment of alternative plots under the Large Scale Acquisition

Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi Scheme, 1961 (hereinafter referred

to as '1961 Scheme'). He further states that as the land belonging to the

petitioners had been acquired by the Government in the year 2005, they are

entitled to allotment of alternative plots under the Scheme, but their cases

are not being processed by the respondents.

4. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners do not

have a vested right to alternative plots and they can only be considered for

allotment of plots in terms of the 1961 Scheme. He further states that the

Govt. of NCT of Delhi has displayed a list of pending applications on its

website and it was for the petitioners to have first verified the status of their

applications before filing the present petition. It is also stated that the case

of each member of petitioner No.1/Association would have to be examined

and processed separately by respondent No.2 and after verification, their

names would be registered and placed in the list as per their seniority. He

further states that the acknowledgments of lodging of applications submitted

by the petitioners to respondent No.2 in the year 2006 need to be

scrutinized on an individual basis for establishing the status of their

entitlement.

5. The aforesaid exercise cannot be directed to be undertaken by

the respondent No.2 in the present proceedings. However, having regard to

the fact that the petitioners have been submitting representations to

respondent No.2 for allotment of alternative plots under the 1961 Scheme,

the last one dated 29.07.2011 (Annexure P-7), it is deemed appropriate to

dispose of the present petition with liberty granted to the members of the

petitioner Samiti to appear before the Deputy Secretary (Alternative Cell),

Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, on 23.04.2012 with

their grievance. Respondent No.2 shall consider the representation of the

petitioners and inform them as to the status of their pending applications for

alternative allotment under the 1961 Scheme.

6. The petition is disposed of alongwith the pending application.

DASTI to the counsel for respondent No.2.

                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH    27, 2012                                         JUDGE
rkb/mk