Uoi And Anr vs Gunwati Devi (Decd) Thr. Lrs And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4683 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                  Decided on: 08.10.2013
+   LPA 1006/2005
    UOI & ANR.                                       ..... Appellants
                         Through: Mr.B.V.Niren, Advocate

                         versus

    GUNWATI DEVI(DECD.)THR.LR'S & ORS          ..... Respondents

Through: Ms.Anjali Chauhan, Advocate for AIIMS.

Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-2/DDA Counsel for the LRs of respondent no.1 (appearance not given)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

% MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(Open Court) CM 14768/2013(for recall of the order dated 20.5.13)

1. This is an application seeking review of the judgment and order

dated 20th May, 2013 of this Court whereby LPA of the Union of

India was allowed.

2. The impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge had

directed that a letter/communication dated 22nd/23rd October, 1984, to

the extent it alluded or referred to release for allotment of 500 sq.

meter plot to the writ petitioner (Gunwanti Devi), had to be complied

with.

3. The Union of India had contended that no enforceable right

could flow in favour of the land owner/ Gunwanti Devi; since the land

originally in her possession was acquired by an award announced on

29th March, 1975; prior to that the predecessor's leasehold rights were

taken over or re-entered on 3.6.74.

4. The petitioner submits that the judgment requires to be

reviewed. Reliance was placed upon the averments made by the

Central Government in its counter affidavit in WP(C) No.590/86, writ

proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by

Mr. B.K.Gupta, like Gunwanti Devi, who was also the occupant of an

adjacent plot, (which were acquired in the same acquisition

proceedings.) It was argued that the Union of India's contention

before this Court as well as before the Division Bench about the

absence of a policy stood belied by the averments made in the counter

affidavit to Mr. B.K.Gupta's writ petition. Reliance is placed on

certain inter-departmental communications dated 3rd September, 1986

and 4th September, 1989 which were annexed along with the said

counter affidavit.

5. The learned senior counsel Shri A.K.Ganguli urged that these clearly established that the Union of India suppressed material

circumstances which went to the root of the matter and thus requires

re-examination of the entire appeal by setting aside/recall of the

judgment.

6. This Court has considered the submissions. The circumstance

to the allotment of land to other parties, such as Bal Krishna Dang, S.

Gurbachan Singh and Praveer Ukil were noticed in para 9 of the

judgment. The judgment noticed that "all except the petitioner

Gunwanti Devi were handed over the property". The judgment

thereafter proceeds to record the appellant's contention that, there

could under the circumstances, be no question about the existence of

any policy. It is, therefore, incorrect to state that the policy or its

existence was not urged by the applicants or not taken into account.

7. The applicants are right in contending that the letters dated 3rd

September, 1986 and 4th September, 1989 as well as the reply of the

Central Government in the writ petition of Sh. B.K.Gupta were not

placed on record. The question however, is whether that omission by

the UOI amounts to such a fatality to its case as to warrant the recall

of the entire judgment. In the opinion of the Court it does not.

8. The reasoning given by the Court is contained in para 10

onwards of the judgment, where the judgment in Shanti Sports Club

& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2009) 15 SCC 705 has been

discussed and relied upon. The operative portion of the judgment

with respect to withdrawal from acquisition, would indeed have been

to that effect if contention of the petitioner urged today also were to

be accepted. Since there is no dispute that the acquisition stood

complete with the taking over the possession on 29 th January, 1986,

in this Court's opinion, to allot the land or release the land as is

sought by the writ petitioners would amount to a direction to issue a

Notification under Section 48.

9. In para 13, the Court recorded its finding that the Union was

not estopped from resiling on whatever representations made, as is

alleged to have made.

10. Apart from the above, the letters dated 3 rd September, 1986 and

4th September, 1989 do not assure any release of any land which were

acquired and had vested in the State. They refer to a proposal to

release some lands in favour of four parties. That circumstance alone,

in the opinion of the Court cannot lead to inference that a general policy in regard to this acquisition existed; that three other

landowners were the beneficiaries to such a proposal does not

necessarily lead to the conclusion that Section 48 was resorted to.

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that

the application cannot be accepted and the same is accordingly

dismissed.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J

NAJMI WAZIRI, J OCTOBER 08, 2013 RN