Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh Maan vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 25 August, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 08.08.2017
Judgment delivered on : 25.08.2017
+ W.P.(C) 12306/2015 & C.M .No.32606/2015
SURINDER SINGH MAAN
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Rajesh Gupta and Mr Harpreet
Singh, Advs.
versus
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Yeeshu Jain and Ms Jyoti Tyagi,
Advs for L&B Department
Mr Kush Sharma and Mr Lalit Mohan,
Advs for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter of rejection dated 19.05.2015
issued by respondent No. 1 wherein his application seeking allotment of an
alternate plot was rejected. By this letter, it was informed to the petitioner
that his case for allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had
been placed before the Recommending Committee on 25.02.2015; the
Recommending Committee was of the view that the spouse of the petitioner
having purchased an urbanized property bearing No.C-5/A/219, Janakpuri,
Delhi in her name, the case of the petitioner would not be covered under the
Policy Guidelines entitling him to an alternate plot. His case was
accordingly rejected.
2 The petitioner is aggrieved. The vehement submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly on the date when he had applied
for allotment of an alternate plot which was on 11.07.2003 neither did the
petitioner and nor did his wife own any plot of land. Admittedly the wife of
the petitioner had purchased the aforenoted plot of land only subsequently
i.e. in the year 2004; the criteria for the eligibility of an alternate plot had to
be considered by the Department on the date of his application and not at the
time when they had scrutinized his documents; this letter of rejection thus
suffers from an infirmity.
3 Counter affidavit of the respondent has negated these submissions.
The Policy of the Government has also been placed on record.
4 On the perusal of the record, this Court notes that the land of the
petitioner had been acquired on 27.10.1999; possession was taken over by
respondent No. 1 on 08.05.2000. Compensation for the acquired land was
given to the petitioner on 25.07.2002. The petitioner filed an application
under the scheme for allotment of an alternate plot on 11.07.2003.
Admittedly on that date, neither did the petitioner nor did his wife have any
land in his name. The petitioner had purchased the aforenoted plot in the
name of his wife in the year 2004. All these are admitted facts.
5 The only question which this Court has to answer as to whether the
Policy of the Government entitling a party to allotment of an alternate plot
which admittedly provides that neither the applicant and nor his
spouse/dependent children at the relevant date should have any independent
house in their name in a residential area; what would be the relevant date i.e.
whether it would be the date of filing of the application or the date when the
documents are scrutinized by the Department? This is the question which
has to be answered.
6 On 10.06.2014, pursuant to a communication dated 17.02.2014 from
the Department, the petitioner had submitted his additional documents.
During the scrutiny of these documents which had been supplied by the
petitioner to the respondent, it had come to light that the wife of the
petitioner had acquired an alternate plot on 02.06.2004.
7 At this stage, it would also be useful to extract the eligibility criteria of
the Government which had been approved by the Government of NCT of
Delhi in the year 1961 dealing with allotment of alternate plots. The object
of the scheme reads as under:-
"The scheme of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands
are acquired for planned development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure"
8 The object thus clearly being to provide developed residential plots to
farmers whose land had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi;
this being a rehabilitative measure.
9 This scheme had come into force w.e.f 02.05.1961. The eligibility
criteria (where acquired land is ancestral) reads as under:-
"1. The persons who are RECORDED OWNER prior to issue of notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. The persons whose lands have been acquired must have received the
compensation as rightful owners from the LAC/Court and the Govt. has
taken the possession of acquired land.
3. The applicants should not own a house/residential plot/flat out of village
abadi in his/her dependent relation's name including unmarried children,
nor he should be a member of any Co-operative Housing Society.
4. For awards announced prior to 3.4.86, the land acquired is not less than
150 square yards and for awards announced post 3.4.86, the land must not
be less than one bigha."
10 What is relevant is clause 3. This provides that the applicant should
not own a house/residential plot/flat out of village abadi either in his own
name or in the name of his dependent relation including unmarried children,
nor he should be a member of any Co-operative Housing Society.
11 Admittedly as per clause 3 only those persons who do not have a plot
in their own name or in the name of their dependent relation including
unmarried children are entitled to such an alternate plot. Vehement
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner however being reiterated
that the eligibility criteria had to be determined by the Department in the
year 2003 i.e. on the date when the application was made by the petitioner
and not later on when the documents were submitted by the petitioner which
had then been brought to the notice of the Department that the wife of the
petitioner owned a residential plot.
12 This Court is not in agreement with this submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner. The Policy of the Government as is evident from
the scheme was to provide residential plots to farmers whose land had been
acquired; it was a rehabilitative measure; meaning thereby that it was to
rehabilitate those farmers whose land had been acquired as they had become
homeless or landless. In the instant case, the land of the petitioner had been
acquired; yet before his allotment could be processed, the wife of the
petitioner had acquired a property in her own name meaning thereby that
clause 3 (highlighted supra) created a hurdle in the case of the petitioner and
since his wife already owned a plot in her name on the date when the
allotment was to be issued, the petitioner was not entitled to an alternate plot.
It is also not the case of the petitioner that his wife was not dependent on
him.
13 In a Full Bench judgment of this Court reported as AIR 1987 Delhi 46
Shiv Devi Vs. Lt. Governor, this provision had been interpreted and the
relevant extract of the aforenoted order reads herein as under:-
"This shows that a plot can only be allotted to a person whose wife/husband
or any of his/her dependent relations, including unmarried children do not
own a house or plot in Delhi. Thus, the only beneficiaries under the Scheme
of allotment in lieu of a plot are those who have no house in Delhi or whose
dependant family members etc. do not have a house. No other person can get
an allotment. If we see the scheme this way, we will understand that it has a
distinct beneficial quality regarding the public. It is not a gift. It is a
necessity for persons who would otherwise not possibly acquire any homes.
Xxxxxxxxx
The Scheme visualises one house per person. When there is a situation of no
house or no plot when the existing plot of that person has been acquired by
the State, then it is the duty of the State to given an alternative plot. That is
the purpose and the end-all and be all of the Scheme."
14 Applying the ratio of the aforenoted judgment, the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
AUGUST 25, 2017
A
