Delhi High Court
Government Of Nct Of Delhi vs Renu Aggarwal on 19 January, 2017
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment pronounced on : 19th January, 2017
+ LPA 156/2016
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI ....Appellant
Through : Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate.
Versus
RENU AGGARWAL .....Respondent
Through : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
C. M. APPL. No. 8835/2016 (Delay in filing)
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the application and in the interest of justice,
delay in filing the present appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 156/2016
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order
dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.
5493/2013 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the
respondent. The unsuccessful respondent in the writ petition is the
appellant before us.
2. It is the case of the appellant that vide notification dated 21.03.2003
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land falling in
Village Barwala, Delhi was acquired by the Government for public use.
Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, Award No. 12/05-06 was announced on
05.08.2005 and the land in question was transferred to the government
department on 06.10.2005. Thereafter, on 23.07.2010, compensation was
paid to the respondent. Further, on 14.11.2011, respondent applied for
allotment of alternative plot but the appellant / GNCTD refused to accept the
said application and returned the same with an endorsement "cannot be
accepted" as the same was filed beyond the period of one year post from the
date of receipt of compensation.
3. Thereafter, the respondent made a representation dated 29.02.2012 to
the appellant / GNCTD but there was no action taken and thereby the
respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2509/2012 in this court which
was disposed of on 18.03.2013 directing the appellants to re-consider the
application of the respondent. Pursuant to the order dated 18.03.2013 a
Recommendation Committee was formed which came to the conclusion that
the application of the petitioner was beyond the period of limitation.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant filed another writ
petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5493/2013 before this Court wherein the
Learned Single Judge held that :
"9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the
conclusion reached in the impugned communication cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, the impugned communication is set
aside.
9.1. In these circumstances, the recommendation committee
will issue the necessary recommendations for allotment of
alternate plot to the petitioner unless it is fettered by any other
objections with regard to the documents filed by the petitioner.
If there are any deficiencies, then the respondent will issue a
notice to the petitioner indicating therein the date, venue and
time at which she would be required to present herself. The
recommendation committee will, accordingly, afford a
personal hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass a
speaking order in that behalf. A copy of the speaking order
will be furnished to the petitioner within two weeks of the same
being passed.
9.2. Needless to say, the entire exercise will be completed
with due expedition though, not later than two months from
today. It is made clear, that if the recommendation committee
were to agree with the contention of the petitioner then, she
would be given the same seniority which she would have had
got, had her application been allowed in the first instance.
10. The petition is accordingly, disposed of."
5. Feeling disinclined by the order passed above the appellant herein
preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
6. Assailing the correctness of the order made in the writ petition and
inviting the attention of this court to the policy dated 30.11.1993, Mr. Biraja
Mahapatra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the
application for allotment of alternative plot was time barred as having been
filed beyond the period of one year from the date of receipt of compensation
the judgment is liable to be set aside.
7. Contrarily, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the
respondent submitted that the respondent did not come across any
advertisement etc. wherein the applications were invited from the owners of
land whose land was acquired under the scheme. It was further urged by the
counsel that the payment certificate was required to be accompanied with the
application form and the same could only be obtained by the respondent on
01.09.2011 and therefore the respondent filed the application well within the
stipulated time period.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the
impugned judgment and perused the material record placed before us.
9. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant
could have rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it
was filed beyond the period of limitation envisaged in the policy. Relevant
portion of the policy dated 30.11.1993 envisaging the period of limitation is
reiterated 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...."
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
10 years and it cannot be expected of an applicant to go through old
document of the department for filing the application.
11. Undoubtedly, delay defeats equity if there is negligence attributed by
the parties. In the present case, admittedly compensation was received by
the appellant on 23.07.2010 and after obtaining payment certificate on
01.09.2011, he filed the application for allotment of an alternate plot on
14.11.2011, as such delay if any is negligible.
12. We are in consonance with the view taken by the learned Single Judge
and therefore there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under
appeal.
13. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.
14. Before parting with this order, this court hastens to add at this stage
that the existing public notice in question shall be re-issued by the appellant
to inform the public and make it easily available for them.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 19, 2017
gr//
