Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Of Delhi Thr ... vs Dharam Pal on 19 January, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on : 19th January, 2017
+ LPA 384/2016 & C. M. APPL. No. 22911-12/2016
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI THR SECRETARY (LAND &
BUILDING DEPARTMENT) ....Appellant
Through : Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel for
Land & Building.
Versus
DHARAM PAL .....Respondent
Through : Mr. L. C. Rajput, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
C. M. APPL. No. 22911/2016 (Delay in filing)
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice,
delay of 256 days in the filing the present appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 384/2016
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order
dated 19.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
3124/2014 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the
respondent herein. The unsuccessful respondent in the writ petition is the
appellant before us.
2. The brief facts of the present appeal stated by the appellant are that
the respondent was the owner of two parcels of land situated in Village
Nilothi, Delhi. Vide notification 06.01.1995 under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 lands falling in Village Nilothi, Delhi were acquired
by the Government for the public use. Pursuant to the aforesaid notification,
Award No. 7/96-97 was announced. The respondent received compensation
i.e a sum of Rs. 10,89,014/- in respect of first parcel of land on 14.03.1997
and a sum of Rs. 3,63,004/- with TDS quantified at Rs. 3155/- in respect of
the second parcel of land on 01.05.2000. He applied for allotment of
alternative plots on 27.05.1998 and 31.05.2001 respectively. By
communication dated 28.11.2013 issued by the appellant the respondent's
application dated 31.05.2001 for allotment of an alternate land had been
rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of
limitation. W.P.(C) 3124/2014 was preferred against the communication
dated 28.11.2013 issued by the appellant wherein the Learned Single Judge
held that :
"12. Thus, having regard to the observations made in Renu
Aggarwal's and Simla Devi's case, I am inclined to allow the
instant writ petition. It is ordered accordingly. The
Recommendation committee shall re-consider the application
of the petitioner. For this purpose, a notice shall be issued to
the petitioner setting out therein the date, time and venue
where he is required to present himself. The recommendation
committee will accord a personal hearing to the petitioner. In
case the petitioner is required to furnish any documents the
notice would indicate the same. Needless to say, the aforesaid
exercise will be concluded by the recommendation committee
with due expedition though, not later than three (3) months
from today. The recommendation committee shall give
reasons for its orders and communicate the same to the
petitioner within two (2) weeks of it being passed. In the event,
the decision taken on the petitioner's application is to
recommend the petitioner's case for allotment of alternate
land, it shall retain the same seniority which it would have
obtained, had it been so recommended, in the first instance.
13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
There shall be, however, no order as to costs."
3. Assailing the judgment of the learned Single Judge Mr. Yeeshu Jain,
Standing Counsel for Land & Building for the appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge without any justification or cogent reasons condoned
the delay when the application for allotment of alternative plot was time
barred as the same was filed after a period of one year.
4. Per Contra, Mr. L. C. Rajput learned counsel for the respondent
refuted the arguments of the appellant and submitted that the view taken by
the learned Single Judge is correct and does not require any interference. It
was urged by the counsel that the department itself had taken a decision in
relation to his application dated 31.05.2001 for alternate plot after more than
12 years to state that there was a delay of nearly 30 days.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the
impugned judgment and perused the material placed before us.
6. We deem it appropriate to rummage through the communication dated
28.11.2013 of the Land and Building Department as well as the public notice
dated 30.11.1993. The communication dated 28.11.2013 regarding the
allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land addressed to the
respondent is reiterated as under:
"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 09/10/2013 and
the Committee observed that as per available records, the
applicant Shri Dharam Pal received the compensation of
his acquired land on 01.05.2000 whereas the application
to allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land was
submitted by him on 31.05.2001 which is beyond the
prescribed time limit of one year. Hence the case being
time barred is REJECTED..."
7. The public notice dated 30.11.1993 which has been brought to our
notice is reproduced as under :
"......6. As regards future cases i.e. those in which land
acquisition proceedings are finalized after the date of this
notice, applications for allotment of alternative plot will be
considered by the department within a period of one year
from the date of finalization of the land acquisition
proceedings. This will be a standing arrangement for
which no separate public notice, fixing further time limits
from time to time as in the past, will be required. The
application forms will be supplied free of cost by the Land
Acquisition Collector to the persons receiving the
compensation at the time of its disbursement.
In addition, copies may be obtained free of charge from
the Reception Counter of the Land & Building Department
between 10.00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. on all working
days......"
8. It is in accordance to the aforesaid public notice that the appellant is
claiming the application of the respondent for allotment of alternative plot as
time barred. The question that remains for consideration before us is whether
the 30 days delay in filing the application with respect to the second parcel
of land could disentitle the respondent for being considered for allotment of
the alternate plot.
9. Admittedly, the compensation relating to the second parcel of land
was received by the respondent on 01.05.2000 and the respondent applied
for allotment of alternative plot on 31.05.2001 after a delay of nearly 30
days. As per the public notice dated 30.11.1993 the respondent had to file
the application within a period of one year from the date of finalization of
the land acquisition proceedings but the same appears to be directory and
there is nothing surfacing the basis for such fixation. Undoubtedly, delay
defeats equity if there is negligence attributed by the parties but in the
present facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent would be
seriously prejudiced if his application is not considered for allotment of
alternate plot.
10. Material on record discloses that the appellant has not tendered any
document to show that the public notice dated 30.11.1993 was in public
domain and easily accessible to the public at large rather it is averred by the
appellant that there was no need to have a separate public notice. We are in
affirmity with the finding of the learned Single Judge that between the
issuance of public notice and notification under Section 4, there was a gap of
12 years and it cannot be expected of an applicant to go through old
document of the department for filing the application.
11. We are of the considered view that the delay of 30 days in the present
case is negligible and in this background, we are in consonance with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge.
12. There is no justifiable reason to interfere with the finding of the
Learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal being without any merit is
dismissed.
C.M. APPL. No.22912/2016
In view of the order passed in the appeal, this application is rendered
infructuous.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 19, 2017
gr//
