Delhi High Court
Nanak Chand vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 6 August, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3805/2015
NANAK CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartickay Mathur and Mr. Sankit
Gupta, Advocates
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi for Mr. Yeeshu Jain,
Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 06.08.2015
1. This writ petition is directed against communication dated
14.10.2014, whereby the application for allotment of an alternate plot has
been rejected on the ground that the land so acquired does not stand mutated
in favour of the applicant.
2. It is the petitioner's case that the acquired land was owned by Mr.
Satbir Singh, Mr. Ranbir Singh, Ms. Kamlesh Devi, Ms. Nirmla Devi and
Ms. Santosh Devi, who are sons and daughter of one, Mr. Mukhtyar Singh.
2.1 It is submitted by the petitioners that a registered sale deed dated
25.04.1990 was executed by the said Mr. Mukhtyar Singh (who was the
general power of attorney holder of the abovementioned owners), in favour
of the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
eligibility condition prescribed by the respondent, the petitioner would be
entitled for consideration qua allotment of an alternate plot as long as the
acquired land was purchased prior to the notification issued under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and there was no violation of the
provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, the Delhi Rent (Restriction
on Transfer ) Act, 1972 or any other law which may be in force.
3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner avers that a certified copy of the
aforementioned sale deed was furnished to the respondent, despite which,
the application for allotment of alternate plot was rejected only on the
ground that the acquired land was not mutated in favour of the petitioner
which, as indicated above, was not the requirement of the scheme
formulated by the respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the respondent, the instant writ
petition was filed.
5. Notice in the petition was issued on 20.04.2015. Whereupon,
pleadings in the matter stood completed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in line with the stand
taken in the writ petition.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has
submitted that only those applicants can be considered for allotment of an
alternate plot whose names appear in the revenue record as recorded owners.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to
accept the stand taken before me on behalf of the respondent. The reason
for this is, the eligibility condition prescribed by the respondent. For the
sake of convenience, the relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow :-
"..The purchase of land should be prior to notification u/s. 4 of
Land Acquisition Act and should not be in violation of Delhi
Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Delhi Land (Restriction on
Transfer Act), 1972 or any other law in force.."
8.1. A bare perusal of the eligibility condition shows that as long the
acquired land was purchased prior to the issuance of the Section 4
notification issued under the 1894 Act, the applicant would be eligible as
long as there was no violation of either the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954,
the Delhi Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1972 or any other law which
may be in force. Nothing has been shown to me which, would indicate that
the petitioner has violated provisions of any of the Acts or other laws which
are in force. As per the scheme so framed, there was no requirement that the
acquired land ought to have been mutated in favour of the applicant.
8.2 There is no dispute raised before me that the applicant on the date of
acquisition and / or on the date of payment of compensation was not the
owner of the acquired land.
9. In these circumstances, it is clear that the ground taken in the
impugned communication is clearly erroneous in law. Accordingly,
communication dated 14.10.2014, is set aside. The Recommendation
Committee will issue a fresh notice to the petitioner indicating therein, the
date, time and the venue at which he is required to present herself. Notice
will also indicate the relevant documents which he could be required to
make available to the Recommendation Committee. The Recommendation
Committee, after granting personal hearing to the petitioner, will pass a
speaking order; a copy of which will be served on the petitioner, within two
weeks of the order being passed.
9.1 Needless to say, the aforementioned exercise will be completed with
due expedition though, no later than two (2) months from today.
10. With the aforesaid observations in place, the captioned petition is
disposed of.
11. Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AUGUST 06, 2015
yg
