Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Sethi vs Land And Building Department And ... on 30 April, 2015
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1608/2012
KAMLESH SETHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Balvinder Ralhan, Advocate
versus
LAND AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT
AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate for R-1
Ms. Latika Dutta, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 30.04.2015
1. This is a writ petition filed to seek a direction against the
respondent for allotment of an alternate plot.
1.1 It is the petitioner's case that her plot was acquired in 1978.
The averment made in respect of the relief sought, in the petition, is
that, the petitioner was the owner of the property situate in Khasra
no.689/109, in Village Sarai Peepli Thala, in Mohindra Park, Block-Z
Extension, Delhi, which is now known as Jahangir Puri (in short the
property).
1.2 The petitioner, submits that for being allotted an alternate plot,
on account of compulsory acquisition of her property, an application
was filed with respondent no.1, on 29.07.1978.
1.3 It is also the case of the petitioner that respondent no.1, had
sought certain documents vide communication dated 08.01.1980
which were also furnished, as demanded by the said respondent.
1.4 Furthermore, the petitioner avers that a declaration was filed
with respondent no.1 that she did not own any residential plot or
house in Delhi (excluding village abadi) or New Delhi or even in
Delhi Cantt.
1.5 The case of the petitioner, is that, she has been a resident of
Maharashtra all this while and that respondent no.1 has not allotted a
plot despite the acquisition of her property. To support her case that
she was the owner of the aforementioned property, a photocopy of the
sale deed, which is appended as, Annexure P-2 at pages 25-26, of the
paper book, is relied upon.
1.6 What is to be noted is that after more than three decades, the
petitioner, for the first time, wrote to the first respondent, on
13.07.2010 with respect to the issue pertaining to non-allotment of an
alternate plot.
1.7 This letter was followed by two other communications dated
20.09.2010 and the letter dated 03.02.2011 written to the Chief
Minister of Delhi. With the latter communication, copy of certain
documents including the purported registered sale deed dated
03.04.1972, was also appended, which, as indicted above, is appended
as Annexure P-2.
1.8 The aforesaid was followed by a legal notice issued to the
respondent by the petitioner via its advocate. The said legal notice is
dated 26.02.2011.
1.9 Recourse was taken by the petitioner to the Right to
Information Act, 2005 as well. The petitioner did not succeed at the
PIO level and therefore, the matter was escalated with the first
appellate authority.
2. Consequent thereto, the following reply, evidently, was
received by the petitioner's husband, Mr. Tilak Raj :-
"..With reference to your RTI application ID No.5251/11,
the point wise reply of your application is as under :-
1. The information sought could not be provided for want of
file No. in the RTI application.
2. Pertains to LAC (North-West).
3. Pertains to DDA.
4. As in 3 above.
5. You may obtain a copy of the policy available on the
departmental website www.delhigovt.nic.in
6. Pertains to LAC.."
2.1 I am informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter
was not escalated to the next level i.e., Central Information
Commission.
2.2 The petition has been filed, broadly, in the background of the
aforesaid facts.
3. In the counter affidavit, respondent no.1 has taken the
following defences :-
(i). that the purported sale deed is not on the face of it, a registered
document;
(ii). no proof of receipt of compensation has been attached by the
petitioner;
(iii). despite efforts, no application submitted by the petitioner has
been found in the record, therefore, presumably the application would
have been rejected long ago for the reason that there is no policy for
acquisition of residential plots;
(iv). that the petitioner has not pursued her case for allotment of
alternate plot for a period of three decades; and
(v). that the allotment of alternate plots in lieu of acquired land
under "Larger Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land
in Delhi Scheme", which was promulgated on 02.05.1961, applies
only to agricultural land. Admittedly, in this case, the land which
was, purportedly, acquired, was not an agricultural land.
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner says that no answer to the
documents filed by the petitioner would show that, firstly, an
application dated 29.07.1978 was filed; and secondly, that documents
were submitted pursuant to the communication of respondent no.1,
dated 08.01.1980.
3.2 Mr. Birbal, on the other hand, apart from what is stated in the
counter affidavit stated that there is no reference whatsoever to any
acquisition proceedings. The proceedings under the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 would have ordinarily entailed steps under sections 4 and 6
of the said Act, which if, acquisition was completed would have
resulted in an award. Mr. Birbal says that there is no whisper of any
of these proceedings having been taken up qua the petitioner's land.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the
view that notwithstanding the aforesaid, what is glaring is that the
petitioner has made no attempt to press ahead with what she claims
was her right to an alternate plot within a reasonable time frame. The
first time, that the petitioner, took any such step, in that, direction was
admittedly when, a letter dated 13.07.2010, was addressed to
respondent no.1.
4.1 Apart from the above, there is also the issue of credibility of the
petitioner. In the declaration, supposedly, filed by the petitioner in
1980s with respondents when, she laid claim for allotment, her age is
recorded as 24 years. However, 14 years later in the identity card
issued by the election commission, as on 01.01.1994, petitioner's age
is recorded as 40 years.
4.2 These documents inject doubt in one's mind as to the veracity of
the claim made by the petitioner, apart from the fact, it is woefully
delayed.
5. A delay of three decades cannot be cured by this court or by
any other Department of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Records are
obviously not available, which is the stand of respondent no.1. I find
no merit in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
APRIL 30, 2015
yg
