Delhi High Court
Sunder Pal vs Land & Building Department on 4 August, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 4thAugust, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 7123/2013
SUNDER PAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr. N.S. Dalal and Mr. Amit
Rana, Advs.
Versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Despite repeated opportunities, counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent is not on record. Therefore, respondent's right to file counter-
affidavit is forfeited.
2. Vide the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to quash
the order dated 16.08.2013 vide which the application of the petitioner for
allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquisition of the land of the petitioner
was ordered to be rejected on the ground of limitation.
3. Vide impugned order dated 16.08.2013, respondent passed order as
under:
"With reference to the above-mentioned subject, it is to inform
you that your case for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
acquired land has been placed before the meeting of
Recommendation Committee held on 12.07.2013 and the
Committee observed that Shri Ved Ram, the applicant has
applied for allotment of alternative plot on 20.07.1990. The land
of the applicant was acquired vide Award NO. 6D/SUPP/86-87
on 19.06.1986 and compensation of the same was received by
him on 30.01.1990 as per his application form. In view of the
notice dated 14.09.1987 the recorded owners whose land was
acquired were required to apply for allotment of alternative plot
within the period of three months of receipt of the compensation
against the acquired land. In the instant case, the applicant
failed to apply for alternative plot within 3 months after receipt
of the compensation on 30.01.1990 and the case is therefore,
time barred, hence REJECTED."
4. Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that similar issue came before this Court in the case of Simla Devi
Vs. Secretary & Ors. 140(2007) DLT 474 wherein in Paragraph 3 facts of
that case recorded as under:-
"3. It is stated by the respondent that the petitioner received
land acquisition compensation as determined by the land
acquisition Award on 6.3.1997 and that she applied for
allotment of alternative land on 1.7.1998. The application
was rejected by the impugned order dated 19.10.1999. The
reason for rejection of the petitioner's application is that
pursuant to a public notice stated to have been issued on
30.11.1993 in the newspaper individuals whose lands had
been acquired after 31.12.1998 were required to apply for
allotment of an alternative plot latest by 31.1.1994 of
"within one year from completion of acquisition
proceedings whichever is later." Since in the present case
the petitioner received compensation on 6.3.1997, it is
contended that the application for alternative allotment
should have been submitted latest by 5.3.1998 whereas it
was submitted on 1.7.1998. Therefore, the only reason for
rejection of the petitioner's application for being considered
for alternate allotment was that it was "time barred case".
5. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, this Court held as under:-
"5. This Court is of the view that the reason adduced
by the respondent for not considering petitioner's
application for allotment of an alternative plot is not
tenable. Even earlier this Court had passed an order on
20.10.2003 directing the respondent to consider the
petitioner's application. Pursuant thereto the respondent
rejected the said representation by the impugned order only
on the ground that it was "time barred". The so-called
public notice is neither a statutory notice nor is a gazetted
noted which is presumed to have been known by everyone.
On the contrary the notice was published, if at all, in the
newspapers only once in 1993. In the circumstances, to
contend that someone in 1997 applying for allotment of
alternative land should be presumed to know the time limit
that is stipulated in a notice printed in the newspaper four
years earlier is being unrealistic and impractical. There is
nothing so immutable about the time limit set in the notice
that the respondent should be precluded from considering
an application which is delayed by about four month. Since
this is a time limit set by the respondents themselves, surely
in deserving cases like the present, where the applicant
cannot be presumed to know of the time limit, such a delay
ought to have been condoned. On the contrary thee refusal
to condone the delay would result in injustice."
6. Admittedly, against the acquired land of the petitioner, he received
compensation on 30.01.1990 and an application was moved in June, 1990,
i.e., within six months of the compensation received.
7. In view of the facts of the case in hand and the afore-noted dictum of
this Court, the impugned order dated 16.08.2013 is hereby quashed.
8. Consequently, respondent department is directed to consider the
application of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot within two
months.
9. The decision of the respondent shall be communicated to the
petitioner within 10 days thereafter.
10. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondent,
he is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.
11. The petition is allowed in above terms.
SURESH KAIT, J
AUGUST 04, 2014
Jg/sb
