Delhi High Court
Laxman Singh & Anr. vs Land & Building Department & Anr.Q on 10 November, 2014
Author: Suresh Kait
$~30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:10th November, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 7677/2014
LAXMAN SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr. I.S. Gulia and Mr. Naresh K.
Daksh, Advs.
versus
LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Adv. for Mr.
Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for R1.
Mr. Arun Birbal and Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advs. for
R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
CM. No. 18069/2014
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application is allowed.
+ W.P.(C) 7677/2014
1. Vide the present petition, petitioners have assailed the communication
dated 10.07.2013 of respondent no. 1, whereby rejected the application of
petitioner no. 1 for alternative plot.
2. Further seek direction thereby directing respondent no. 1 to
recommend the alternative plot in favour of the petitioner.
3. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the
aforesaid land owned and possessed by the father of the petitioners was
acquired by the respondent no. 1 vide award dated 02.04.1993 and
possession was taken over on 26.08.1992 by respondent no. 2. Father of the
petitioners expired during the acquisition proceedings and the compensation
was paid to his legal heirs including the petitioners. Accordingly, both the
petitioners submitted separate applications for alternative plot with relevant
documents.
4. Since the respondent no. 1 requires the Relinquishment Deed from the
other legal heirs, petitioner no. 1 bonafidely executed a Relinquishment
Deed in favour of the petitioner no. 2. Since the petitioners were informed
that only one file will be considered for recommendation of alternative plot,
to avoid any confusion, all the legal heirs including the petitioner no. 2
executed a Relinquishment Deed in favour of petitioner no. 1 enabling him
to get the alternative plot in his name.
5. Accordingly, petitioner no. 1 submitted an application along with
Relinquishment Deed, Indemnity Bond and other documents with
respondent no1. 1 with a request to surrender the file of petitioner no. 2,
however, the said respondent ignored the request and continued to process
and consider both the files separately.
6. Vide communication dated 03.10.2013, respondent no. 1 rejected the
application of the petitioner no. 2, Mahavir Singh as under:
"Sub: Regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
acquired land.
Sir/Madam,
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 04.09.2013 and the
Committee observed that the applicant Shri Mahabir Singh
applied for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land
vide application dated 02.02.1994 situated in Village Kakrola.
It was observed that Shri Mahabir Singh vide Relinquishment
Deed executed on 07.12.2011 has relinquished his claim in
respect of above said acquired land in favour of Shri Laxman,
S/o Late Shri Chandgi, R/o, 386, Village & PO Kakrola, New
Delhi. In view of the above facts, the application filed by Shri
Mahabir Singh for alltoment of alternative plot is Rejected."
7. And vide communication dated 10.07.2013, the application of
petitioner no. 1 was rejected as under:
"Sub: Regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
acquired land.
Sir/Madam,
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 29.05.2013 and the
Committee observed Shri Laxman Singh is not the recorded
owner in this case. His father Shri Chandgi was the recorded
owner. Apart from the above, Shri Laxman has relinquished his
share in favour of other legal heirs in file No.
31(50)/408/94/L&B/Alt. Hence the case was considered by the
Committee and rejected on the same ground that since he has
relinquished his share in favour of the others, he is not eligible
for consideration for allotment of alternative plot, hence
rejected by the Committee.
8. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submits that
since Mahavir Singh, petitioner no. 2 had relinquished his share in favour of
petitioner no. 1 therefore the respondent no. 1 had to decide the application
for alternative plot in favour of petitioner no. 1.
9. However, respondent no. 1 got confused with the two Relinquishment
Deeds made by Laxman Singh, i.e., petitioner no. 1 in favour of petitioner
no. 2 and thereafter petitioner no. 2, i.e. Mahavir Singh in favour of
petitioner no. 1, whereas respondent no. 1 had to rely upon the subsequent
Relinquishment Deed made on 07.12.2011 by Mahavir Singh, petitioner
no. 2. However, respondent no. 1 rejected the application in a mechanical
way without application of mind.
10. Keeping in view the facts narrated above, I am of the considered
opinion that respondent no. 1 has decided the application mechanically
without looking into the correspondence made, and the Relinquishment
Deed dated 07.12.2011 executed by petitioner no. 2 in favour of petitioner
no. 1. Moreover, ignored a communication dated 02.01.2012 sent by
petitioner no 1 to respondent no. 1.
11. In view of above, orders dated 10.07.2013 is hereby quashed.
12. Consequently, respondent no. 1 is directed to decide the application of
the petitioner no. 1 as per law for allotment of alternative plot as per initial
seniority.
13. I here make it clear that if the respondent no. 1 requires any
documents or clarification thereto, a communication shall be sent to the
petitioner no. 1 for the same and after meeting all the requirements,
respondent no. 1 shall decide the application of the petitioner no. 1
accordingly.
14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
15. Dasti.
CM. NO. 18070/2014(for Stay)
With the disposal of the instant petition, instant application has
become infructuous and disposed of as such.
SURESH KAIT, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2014
jg
