Delhi High Court
Moorti Devi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 April, 2018
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 19.04.2018
+ W.P.(C) 6119/2013
MOORTI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. I.S. Dahiya, Advocate.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Deepika, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
REKHA PALLI, J (ORAL)
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has sought
quashing of letter dated 22.04.2013 vide which she was
informed that the Recommendation Committee in its meeting
held on 28.03.2013, had rejected her case for grant of an
alternate plot on the ground that the application submitted by
her was time barred and had not been submitted within the
stipulated period of three months from the date of receipt of
compensation.
2. Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner's mother Smt. Sudha was the recorded owner
of land measuring 12 bigha 13 biswas, comprising in Khasra
No. 81/1(4-10), 93/2(1-09), 99(4-16), 103/2(0-12) & 109/2(1-
06), situated in the revenue estate of village Sahupur, Delhi. He
submits that the petitioner's mother gifted the aforesaid land in
favour of her two daughters including the petitioner by way of a
registered gift deed dated 11.03.1983. He further submits that
the said land was subsequently acquired by way of notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 27.01.1984
which was followed by an award dated 01.09.1986. The
petitioner received thereafter the amount of compensation on
16.01.1987.
3. Mr.Dahiya submits that the petitioner, being eligible to
apply for an alternate plot in accordance with the rehabilitation
policy dated 02.05.1961 of the respondents, submitted an
application seeking alternate plot on 03.06.1988 which was
received in the office of respondent. He submits that the
application remained pending for over twenty years and vide
letter dated 03.09.2008, the petitioner was asked by the
respondent to submit further documents, which were duly
submitted by her along with her reply dated 15.10.2008. He
further submits that even after receipt of the said documents, the
respondent raised some further queries and the petitioner had
duly answered the same vide letter dated 30.10.2012.
4. Mr.Dahiya submits that however instead of processing
her application based on her admitted eligibility, the
respondents vide the impugned letter dated 22.04.2013
informed the petitioner, that the Recommendation Committee
had rejected her case on the ground of being time barred.
5. In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been
filed. Upon notice, respondent had filed its counter affidavit in
which the respondent while admitting that the petitioner's land
had been acquired and that she had received compensation for
the same on 16.01.1987, has contended that the petitioner's
application was rightly rejected as being time barred, as the
same was not submitted within the requisite time period of three
months from the date of receipt of compensation as required
under the public notice dated 14.09.1987.
6. Ms.Deepika, learned counsel for respondent submits that
a perusal of the said public notice clearly shows that the
application for alternate plot had to be made within three
months of receiving the compensation which period could be
extended by another three months. She submits that in view of
the admitted fact that the petitioner had submitted her
application only on 3rd June, 1988 i.e. after about one year and
five months of reeiving the compensation, the respondents were
fully justified in rejecting the claim by the petitioner.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon public notice dated 27.03.1989
whereby the plot owners whose land had been acquired between
16.11.1963 and 31.12.1988, were given another opportunity by
way of an amnesty scheme to submit application for allotment
of an alternate plot on or before the 30.04.1989. The aforesaid
public notice also clarified that all pending applications of
persons whose land had been acquired between 16.11.1963 and
31.12.1988 would be considered and therefore there was no
requirement for them to file fresh application and thus contends
that the respondents were not justified in rejecting the
petitioner's pending application received by them on
06.06.1988.
The relevant portion of public notice dated 27.03.1989,
reads as under:-
" Only those persons may apply who have not
applied earlier for the said purpose. For the
removal of doubts it is clarified that this scheme is
applicable only to those persons who were recorded
owners of the acquired land at the time of
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act."
8. Mr. Dahiya, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a
decision of this Court dated 05.04.2018 passed in WP(C)
127/2013 wherein this Court after examining the aforesaid
policy dated 02.05.1961 as also the public notice dated
27.03.1989, had come to a conclusion that in such
circumstances when the respondents had themselves come up
with an amnesty scheme on 27.03.1989 permitting land owners
whose land had been acquired between 16.11.1963 and
31.12.1988 to submit fresh application before 30.04.1989, the
decision to reject pending applications on the ground of delay
was unjustified, especially in view of the admitted position that
the said public notice clearly stated that persons whose
applications were pending, need not apply again. For parity of
reasons, I find that the rejection of the petitioner's application
dated 3rd June, 1988 which was admittedly pending with the
respondent at the time of issuance of public notice dated 27 th
March, 1989, was wholly arbitrary and unjustified.
9. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
22.04.2013 as also the decision of the recommendation
committee dated 28.03.2013 rejecting the petitioner's case for
alternate plot, are quashed. The respondents are directed to re-
consider the petitioner's application dated 03.06.1988 for grant
of an alternate plot on its own merit within 12 weeks.
10. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in aforesaid
terms.
(REKHA PALLI)
JUDGE
APRIL 19, 2018
p
