Delhi High Court
Ishwar Chand Saini & Ors vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 13 February, 2018
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6856/2014 & CM No. 16180/2014
ISHWAR CHAND SAINI & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr N. S. Vashisht and Mr Rakesh
Saini and Ms Jyoti Kataria Bajaj,
Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms Urvi Kuthiala with Ms Varinda
Kapoor, Advocates for R-3/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 13.02.2018
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a
communication dated 23.06.2014 (hereafter „the impugned order‟) passed by
the Deputy Secretary (ALT), Land & Building Department, Government of
NCT of Delhi, whereby the petitioners‟ application for an alternate plot in
lieu of certain acquisition of certain lands, was rejected. The petitioners
claim that that they are entitled for allotment of an alternative plot based on
the right of their predecessor late Shri Durga Prasad.
2. The petitioners state that Shri Phoru Singh owned agricultural land
bearing Khasra No.24/5, 25/1, 24/26 & 51, measuring 25 bighas 07 biswas,
situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Kureni, District North-West, Delhi
(hereafter „the said land‟).
3. After the demise of Shri Phoru Singh, the said land was mutated in the
name of his sons, Shri Durga Prasad and Shri Panna Lal, on 26.01.1959.
4. On 30.10.1963, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued, inter alia, for acquisition of the said land
for the planned development of Delhi. This was followed by a declaration
under Section 6 of the said Act, which was issued on 16.01.1969. The award
of compensation in respect of the said land was rendered on 19.09.1986 and
the possession of the said land was taken on 23.09.1986.
5. It is stated that Shri Durga Prasad expired on 28.02.1982 and Shri
Panna Lal died on 13.04.1972. After the demise of Shri Durga Prasad and
Shri Panna Lal, and while the acquisition proceedings were pending, the said
land was mutated in the name of Shri Om Prakash, Shri Balbir Singh, Shri
Hari Singh and Shri Ishwar Chand (petitioner no.1).
6. Shri Lalit Chaudhary and Shri nitin Chaudhary are sons of Late Shri
Balbir Singh and Shri Dinesh Saini is the son of Late Prem Lata Saini, the
widow of Late Shri Om Prakash.
7. Shri Balbir Singh, Shri Ishwar Chand and Smt. Prem Lata Saini
(hereafter „the applicants‟) made an application dated 28.09.1998 for
allotment of a residential plot under a scheme referred to a "Large Scale
Acquisition, Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961" (hereafter
„the Scheme‟)
8. The said application was rejected by the Recommendation Committee
in its meeting held on 25.04.2014 on the ground that the said applicants had
a share in urbanized property bearing no.2470, Chatta Jam Beg, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi. This was communicated to Shri Balbir Singh (since deceased)
by the impugned order.
9. It is the case of the petitioners that the entitlement of the applicants
for an alternate residential plot is to be considered on the basis of the
entitlement of their predecessors - late Shri Durga Prasad and Shri Panna
Lal. The said contention is not disputed; on the contrary, it is common
ground that the question whether the applicants (and consequently the
petitioners) would be entitled to a residential plot would have to be
examined on the basis of the eligibility of Shri Durga Prasad and Shri Panna
Lal for such allotment. This is so because on 30.10.1963 - the date of the
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - they were
the recorded owners of the said land.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also referred to
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Shri
Shivkumar Bhargava & Ors.: JT 1995 (6) S.C.274 wherein the Supreme
Court had clearly explained that the right to seek alternative land would
accrue to the person who was the owner of the land on the date when the
same was acquired. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out
below:-
"4. The policy of the Government indicates that the person
whose land was acquired means the owner as on the date,
notification was notified for acquisition, and he alone will
be entitled to allotment of alternative site. A person who
purchases land subsequent to the Notification may be
entitled to claim compensation by virtue of sale made in his
favour, namely, the right, title and interest the predecessor
had but, he cannot be said to be the owner for allotment
since the right of ownership would be determined with
reference to the date on which Notification under s. 4(1) was
published. This was the view of this Court in another case
while considering the Full Bench Judgment of the Delhi
High Court."
11. Thus, the question whether the applicants (and consequently the
petitioners) are entitled to an alternate plot, in terms of the Scheme is
dependent on whether late Shri Durga Prasad and Shri Panna Lal were
entitled to an alternative plot of residential land in lieu of acquisition of said
the land.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the
attention of this Court to a copy of the Will of Late Shri Durga Prasad,
wherein he has declared that he is the absolute owner of house no. 2470,
Chatta Jam Beg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. In terms of clause 10 of the
Scheme, a person owning any residential property in Delhi would be
ineligible for an alternate plot under the Scheme.
13. The relevant extract of the scheme framed for providing alternative
property reads as under:-
"(10)(a) No plot should be allotted to any person, who or
whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations
including unmarried children own a house or residential plot
of land in Delhi, New Delhi or Cantonment."
14. Since Shri Durga Prasad was not entitled to an alternate plot in terms
of the Scheme, the question of the petitioners acquiring any right for an
alternate plot, through him does not arise.
15. At this stage, Mr Vashisht, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners have not examined the question
whether Shri Durga Prasad was entitled to an alternative plot in terms of the
Scheme.
16. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned order. However, since the petitioners state that they have not
examined whether Late Shri Durga Prasad was entitled to an alternate plot,
this Court considers it apposite to observe that the petitioners would be at
liberty to pursue with the concerned authorities, if they are able to establish
that Late Shri Durga Prasad did not own any residential property at the
material time or notwithstanding the same was entitled to an alternate plot in
terms of the Scheme.
17. The petition is disposed of with the above observations. The pending
application also stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
MK
