Delhi High Court
Sunil Ravi Prakash Agrawal vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 22 August, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:22nd August, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 5342/2014
SUNIL RAVI PRAKASH AGRAWAL ..... Petitioner
Represented by: NEMO.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for
R1.
Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No.10630/2014 (for exemption)
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, instant application is allowed.
+ W.P.(C) 5342/2014
1. Vide the present petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the
impugned decision taken by respondent no. 1 in the Minutes of the Meeting
dated 03.01.2014 (Meeting held on 13.12.2013) of the Recommendation
Committee constituted for recommendation of alternative plot, whereby the
case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot has been rejected.
2. Further seeks quashing of the rejection letter dated 27.01.2014 issued
by respondent no. 1, which has not been received by the petitioner till date.
3. The ground of rejection is that the petitioner did not move an
application in specified period limitation of three months. In Delhi Land
Reforms Act, there is no such limitation and if the order is passed after 26
years on the ground that the application moved by the petitioner was beyond
the limitation period 3 months, it is not justified.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner made an application vide dated 22.12.1988
for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the land acquired by respondent.
5. Similar issue came before this Court in the case W.P.(C) 7123/2013
titled as Sunder Pal v. Land and Building Department, wherein held as
under:
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."
6. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 on advance
notice submits that petitioner received the compensation on 11.11.1987 and
applied for allotment of alternative plot vide application dated 22.12.1988,
which is beyond the present limitation of 1 year and the limitation of 3
months prevalent at that time.
7. Ld. Counsel further submits that in terms of the policy of 02.05.1961,
there was no limitation clause, however, in the subsequent amendment
thereto, if any, there is limitation.
8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the ground taken
by the respondent is only limitation of three years. Therefore, the
respondent no.1 is directed to take the decision as per the Rules enforced as
on date.
9. In view of above, impugned order dated 27.01.2014 is hereby set
aside. The decision taken by the Management Committee in the Minutes of
the Meeting dated 03.01.2014 of the meeting held on 13.01.2013 is also set
aside qua the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, respondent no. 1 is directed to consider the application
of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot within two months. The
decision taken by the said respondent shall be communicated to the
petitioner within 10 days thereafter.
11. If the petitioner is still aggrieved with the decision of the respondent
no.1, he is at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
12. The petition is allowed on the above terms.
CM. No.10629/2014 (for stay)
With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
AUGUST 22, 2014
jg
