Delhi High Court
Sultan Singh (Since Deceased Thr ... vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 2 April, 2018
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision : 02.04.2018
+ LPA 534/2016 & CM APPL. 38980-38981/2017
SULTAN SINGH (SINCE DECEASED THR LRS) .....
Appellant
Through: Mr. Priyadarshi Banerjee and
Mr. Vijay Singh, Advocates.
versus
GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Naushad Ahmad Khan,
ASC (Civil), GNCTD with
Mr. Devesh Dubey, Advocate
for R-1 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (ORAL)
%
1. The appellant's grievance is that the writ petition was
summarily rejected on the ground of laches. It is contended that
the learned Single Judge overlooked the crucial and relevant
facts pertaining to the recognition of the identical rights in
favour of the other third party.
2. In view of the order, which this Court proposes to pass, a
detailed discussion of the facts or the merits of the case is not
required. It is however essential to recapitulate the bare
essential facts that the appellant (since deceased), now
represented through the legal representatives, was the owner of
5 biswa land in Khasra No. 63, Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi.
Concededly, the said land was deemed essential for a public
purpose by the Gaon Sabha i.e. for construction of a road in the
village. Alike late Sultan Singh, there were others, who owned
lands in the village, which were also taken over by the Gaon
Sabha contemporaneously, in view of the same resolution of
1976. These were lands belonging to three brothers i.e. Balbir
Singh, Randhir Singh and Chand Rup. On 25.10.1985 the Gaon
Sabha issued a resolution recommending that the land owners
(the aggregate of whose lands measured 18 biswa and was used
for construction of the village road) ought to be compensated
with land. It recommended that each one of the land owners i.e.
late Sultan Singh, the three brothers and the individuals
concerned, be given 5 biswa each (aggregating 25 biswa). This
resolution was approved by the Block Development Committee
on 03.02.1992. Records also disclose that sometime in 1994,
the appropriate Government i.e. the Government of NCT of
Delhi acted upon the approved recommendations and, in fact,
allotted 15 biswa (5 biswa each to the three brothers). The
resolution dated 03.02.1992, for an inexplicable reason,
however, did not specifically refer to late Sultan Singh or the
other third party, whose lands were taken over for the
construction of the village road. Consequently, these two
individuals slipped between two stools as it were and neither the
recommendations of the Gaon Sabha were approved or rejected
nor were they given possession of any land.
3. Apparently, the three brothers (Balbir Singh, Randhir
Singh and Chand Rup laid their claim to the unallotted land
(i.e. the total 10 biswa of which the Gaon Sabha had
recommended 5 biswa to be allotted to Mr. Sultan Singh and the
balance to the other land owners). The rejection of their request
led to filing of a writ petition, which was allowed. On this, the
Government of NCT of Delhi approached this Court by way of
Letter Patents Appeal (LPA No.18/2008), which was allowed
on 20.03.2012. It is however a matter of record that the
Government of NCT of Delhi in its application (CM
No.13924/2009) had averred as follows:-
"1. It is respectfully submitted that in terms of
the resolution dated 25.10.1985, allotment of 5
Biswas of land to each of the following persons
namely, S/Shri Chand Rup, Balbir Singh, Randhir
Singh, Mohan and Sultan was recommended in
Khasra No.334/2, Village Holambi Khurd, Delhi.
2. It is respectfully submitted that the said
allotment was endorsed by Village Development
Committee, Delhi Administration vide Resolution
No.1 dated 3.2.1992. It is respectfully submitted
that in a nutshell 18 biswas of land belonging to 5
persons namely S/Shri Balbir Singh, Chand Rup,
Mohan, Randhir Singh and Sultan in Khasra
No.63 falling in the Lal Dora was exchanged with
25 biswas (5 Biswas each) of land in Khasra
No.334/2 falling in the extended Abadi.
3. The appellant respectfully submits that with
reference to the aforesaid resolution No.1 dated
3.3.1992, Lt. Governor (Delhi) approved exchange
of land measuring 18 biswas out of Khasra No.63
(Abadi Deh/Lal Dora) belonging to S/Shri Balbir
Singh and his two brothers Ranbir Singh and
Chand Rup sons of Shri Dhani Ram with land
measuring 15 biswas out of Khasra No.334/2 (05
biswa each to S/Shri Balbir Singh, Randhir Singh
and Chand Rup) vesting in Gaon Sabha Holambi
Khurd in terms of provisions of the Rule 185 of the
Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959.
4. to 9. xxx xxx xxx
10. That it is reiterated that, as stated herein
above, land admeasuring 18 biswa belonging to 5
persons including the respondents herein was
taken for construction of road and the Gaon Sabha
in exchange of the said land allotted 5 biswa of
land each to Sh. Mohan, Sh. Sultan, Sh. Balbir
Singh, Sh. Randhir Singh and Sh. Chand Rup, i.e.
all the 5 persons were entitled to 25 biswa of land
in whole."
4. While allowing the Government of NCT of Delhi's
appeal the Division Bench observed as follows:-
"12. That though of the 25 bighas of land agreed
to be given vide Resolution dated 25.10.1985, in
lieu of 18 biswas taken for construction of road, 10
biswas still remains with the appellants and further
though the respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and
the respondents 4 to 6 on the other hand claim
adversarially thereto but the said disputes cannot
be adjudicated in these proceedings. It cannot also
be lost sight of that such was not the basis of the
claim of the respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition
from which this appeal arises.
13. Though the respondents 4 to 6 seek a
direction for being put into possession of the said
10 biswas of land but neither can such a direction
be given in this appeal arising from a writ petition
filed by the respondents 1 to 3 nor can such a
direction be given in view of the adversarial claim
of the respondents 1 to 3 on the one hand and the
respondents 4 to 6 on the other hand. It cannot
also be lost sight of that the respondents 4 to 6 are
making such claim after long delay. Such disputes
are best left to be adjudicated in a properly
constituted proceeding, if any maintainable."
5. The learned Single Judge in this case declined to interfere
and issue the directions sought holding that the appellants had
approached the Court after an inordinate and inexplicable delay.
The learned Single Judge also suspected the bona fides of the
litigation voicing the concern that a proxy case was being
fought on behalf of the legal heirs of late Sultan Singh.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the
materials on record and contended that none of the relevant
decisions i.e. the Block Development Committee's approving
order dated 03.02.1992 or the Government of NCT of Delhi's
action in allotting 5 biswa each only to the three brothers can
stand a scrutiny of fairness given that late Sultan Singh was
displaced from his land and received no consideration in lieu of
the sacrifice required of him. It was contended that the delay in
approaching the Court cannot be the sole basis for endorsing the
silence of the Government of NCT of Delhi which itself
amounts to discrimination, especially when the Government of
NCT of Delhi in its appeal had recognised the rights of late
Sultan Singh.
7. Learned counsel for the Government of NCT of Delhi
reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge
and contended that the view expressed i.e. the appellants
approached the Court in a highly belated manner and that in all
probabilities this was proxy litigation, were reasons enough to
reject their claim.
8. It is apparent from the narration of facts that the
appellants i.e. legal heirs of late Sultan Singh are espousing the
cause essentially based on discrimination. Undoubtedly, the
writ petition was filed after a considerable period of time. At
the same time, this Court is alive to the situation that the
possession of land in lieu of the lands taken over (without a
valid acquisition by the Government of NCT of Delhi for a
public purpose) was compensated, atleast so far as the other
land owners i.e. the three brothers are concerned. Equally, the
Government of NCT of Delhi was alive to the situation when it
did not contest Sultan Singh's rights in 2009 when he did
approach this Court in the impleadment application in LPA
18/2008. This cause too was espoused by the Government of
NCT of Delhi. In these circumstances, the Court is of the
opinion that the overall interest of justice demands that the
Revenue Authorities should re-examine the matter, and pass a
speaking order distinguishing the petitioner's case, if, any
justifiable reason exists, in denying them a treatment similar to
what was given to the other land owners (especially the three
brothers i.e. Balbir Singh, Randhir Singh and Chand Rup). A
direction is accordingly issued to the Government of NCT of
Delhi to re-examine the matter afresh. The Lieutenant
Governor shall look into the matter and pass appropriate orders
having regard to the record within six weeks from today after
considering the appellant's or his counsel's submissions in this
case. Such a speaking order shall be directly communicated to
the appellants. All rights and contentions of the parties are
reserved.
9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court
hereby sets aside the impugned order; the appellant is therefore
not required to comply the directions of the costs.
The appeal is allowed in the above terms. All the pending
applications also stand disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
A. K. CHAWLA, J
APRIL 02, 2018
nn
