Delhi High Court
Rajveer Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th January, 2020
Date of decision:27th April, 2020
+ W.P. (C) 3607/2011 & CM. APPL. 7555/2011
RAJVEER SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate (M-
9312710547)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr.
AbhigyanSiddhant, Mr. Shawrya Jain &
Mr. Vinod Sharma, Advocate for UOI
(M-9811418995)
Mr. ManikaTripathy Pandey, Mr. Brahm
Kr. Pandey & Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik,
Advocates for R-2 (M-8920666719)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGMENT
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
Brief Facts
1. Three writ petitions being W.P. (C) 8195/2008, W.P. (C) 3271/2008 and
W.P. (C) 3607/2011 i.e., the present petition, were filed in this Court in respect
of 100 sq. yards of additional land located next to the properties of the
Petitioners in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The two writ petitions being W.P.
(C) 3271/2008 andW.P. (C) 8195/2008 have already been dismissed vide
ordersdated 25th February, 2019 and 27th February, 2019 by a ld. Single Judge
of this Court. On multiple occasions, this matter was also listed alongside
W.P.(C) 8067/2015, which petition was also dismissed by this Court on 30th
August, 2019. The present petition is, however, pending consideration.
2. The facts in this case are that on 30th August, 1969, a licence deed was
executed in favour of one Mr. Mam Chand in respect of property bearing No.
17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Mr. Mam Chand sold the said property in
1962 in favour of Ms. Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal. After the death of Ms.
Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal, a conveyance deed dated 30th June, 2010 was
executed by Respondent No.1 i.e., the Union of India (hereinafter, "UOI") in
favour of their legal heirs i.e., Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ram Chander
Sharmaand Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma. The Petitioner purchased the property
from the said three owners on 12th July, 2010.
3. There were several plots in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi adjacent to
which were additional strips of land measuring approximately100 sq. yards that
were under the occupation of the respective plotowners. The Petitioners
property is one such property.
4. In the year 1970, a Memorandum was issued providing additional strips
of land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. yard to owners of corner tenements. A sum
of Rs.6,000/- was directed to be deposited by plot holders within 15 days of the
issue of the said circular. The plot holders are said to have requested
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., the UOI and the Land and Development Officer
(hereinafter, "L&DO"), to either reduce the amount to be deposited or permit
the same to be deposited in instalments. No reply was, however, received by the
plot holders. Instead, on 31st August, 1981, considering the fact that these
additional strips of land were already under the occupation of the respective
owners of the adjacent properties, a decision was taken to transfer the said
additional strips, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- within six weeks from the
issue of the said letter. The predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner i.e., Mr.
Banarsi Lal, sought payment of the said amount in instalments which request
was rejected vide letter dated 17th October, 1981. Admittedly, the said amount
was never paid. The Petitioner thereafter repeatedly approached the Land &
Development Officer (hereinafter, "L&DO") for allotment of the said strip of
land, however, the allotment was not made by the L&DO.
5. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the
following relief:
"a. To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any
other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing
the respondent No.1 and 2 to regularize the
additional strip of land adjoining to the property
bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the
name and in favour of the petitioner.
b. To issue Writ of Prohibition or any other
appropriate Writ thereby restraining the
respondents from interfering in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner and his family members
in respect of the additional strip of land adjoining
to the property bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
c. Pass any such other order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest
of justice in favour of the petitioner."
Procedural History
6. The present petition was listed from time to time along with the other
writ petitions mentioned in paragraph 1. Vide order dated 11th September, 2017,
this Court had recorded that the Petitioner is willing to pay the current market
value of the additional strip of land. The said order reads as under:
"1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that they are ready and willing to pay the current
market value of the property in question.
Indisputably, the property in question (a strip of
land adjacent to the comer plot) was offered for
allotment to the predecessor of the petitioner, but
he could not pay the necessary amount at the
relevant time.
2. It appears that strips of land adjoining corner
plots were offered because there was no other
alternative use for the said property and was
otherwise in the possession of the allottees of
respective the adjoining plot.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the property in question has been in occupation for
about 67 years and the petitioner is ready and
willing to pay the current market value of the said
property.
4. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2
seek time to take instructions in this regard.
5. List on 07.12.2017."
7. In response to the said order, ld. counsel for the Respondents submit that
instructions were obtained on 17th July, 2018 where it was clearly conveyed by
the competent authority that the additional strips of land cannot be allotted to
the Petitioner and similarly placed persons. The said letter reads as under:
"Sub:- WP(C) 3607/2011, RajveerSharmaVs UOI
&Ors. - reg.
Sir,
Please refer to your letter dated 13/09/2017
wherein you have enclosed a copy of the orders
dated 11/09/17 of the Hon'ble Mr.Justice Vibhu
Bakhru on the above-caption matter.
2. The Hon'ble Judge vide his orders dated
13/09/17 has directed to submit instructions of this
office with regard to willingness of the petitioners
to pay the current market value of the additional
strip of land adjacent to his property.
3. In this regard it is submitted that the Technical
Wing of this office has conducted a detailed survey
of all the four additional strips of land and the
findings are as under:-
Additional
Srl.
Court Case No. Strip of land Status Report
No.
adjacent to
1 WP(C)/3607/2011 17, Rampuri, Regular Plot
Kalkaji
2 WP(C)/3271/2008 44, Rampuri, Regular Plot
Kalkaji
3 WP(C)/8067/2011 M-44, Kalkaji The plot falls on
the 'Right of the
Way'.
4 WP(C)/8195/2008 7, Rampuri, The plot falls on
Kalkaji the 'Right of the
Way'.
4. From the above report of the Technical Wing, it
is evident that the additional strips of land
mentioned at Srl.(3)&(4) cannot be allotted.
Further, the feasibility of allotment of the
additional strips of land at Srl.(1)&(2) above is
being examined by this office in consultation with
concerned divisions of this Ministry. It is to be
noted that the issue of allotment of additional strips
of land to allottees of adjacent plots is a policy
matter which would require administrative as well
as financial approval at the level of the Ministry.
5. As such it is requested that the Hon'ble High
Court may kindly be apprised the above."
8. Thereafter, on 25th February, 2019,this Court dismissed W.P. (C)
3271/2008 titled Dharam Raj v. UOI &Ors.The said writ petition related to
property bearing No. 44, Ram Puri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The
ld. Single Judge held that the reliefs sought for cannot be granted as at the time
when the Respondents had called upon the extant owners to pay the amount for
transfer, the amounts were not paid. For various other reasons, including the
above, the Court held that the additional strip of land belongs to the
Government. The writ was accordingly dismissed. The order in W.P. (C)
3271/2008 was followed in Gian Chand Tuteja v. Union of India and
Ors[WP(C) 8195/2008, decided on 27th February, 2019]. In W.P.(C)
8195/2008, the property in question was property bearing No. 7, Ram Puri
Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi. W.P. (C) 8067/2015 titled Amarjeet Kaur Mavi
v. UOI & Ors. related to property bearing No. M-44, Kalkaji, New Delhi. This
petition was dismissed by the ld. Single Judge inter alia on the ground that the
additional strip of land had been encroached by the Petitioner and, in any case,
the same could not be allotted as it was meant for public use being a right of
way.
Findings
9. The facts reveal that in the present petition, the allotment which was
made in favor of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner i.e., Mr. Banarsi
Lal, on 31st August, 1981 never fructified as Mr. Banarsi Lal did not make the
payment which was demanded. Thereafter, repeated attempts have been made
by the Petitioner to obtain allotment of the additional strip of land. The
representations of the Petitioner have, however, not been acceded to by the
authorities.
10. In the present petition, the right of the Petitioner to property bearing No.
17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi is not in dispute. A perusal of the letter dated
18th July, 2011, which was written by the authorities in response to the
representations of the Petitioner subsequent to the filing of this writ petition,
shows that the L&DO took a categorical stand that the additional strip of land
has never been allotted to the Petitioner's predecessor and allotment cannot
now be considered. The said letter also clearly states that the Petitioner tried to
encroach on Government land and that there was a complaint received by the
L&DO to this effect. The content of the letter reads as under:-
"Sub: Transfer of additional strip of land
adjoining to property No.17, Rampuri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi.
Dear Sir,
I am to refer your letter dated 16.03.2011 on the
above mentioned subject and to say that no point of
time additional strip of land adjacent to plot No.17,
Rampuri, Kalkaji has neither been allotted to your
predecessor, nor can it be considered.
2. Further it may also be noted that as per the
clause 10 of theconveyance deed "conveyance deed
shall be revoked without any notice if itcomes to
light at any later stage that vendee have
encroached upon anyGovt. land/Public land or if
the property is put to any use other than what
isstipulated in the lease terms/Master Plan norms".
3. Complaints have also been received that you
have tried to encroachupon Govt. land, copy of one
such complaint dated 10.5.2011 is enclosed.Hence
you are requested to desist from such action; failing
which evenconveyance deed in respect of 17,
Rampuri, Kalkaji may be revoked as perthe terms
&condition incorporated therein.
4. You are, therefore, requested to immediately
vacate the said land;failing which necessary action
in accordance with law will be taken."
11. This stand of the L&DO has been reiterated subsequently, including in
oral arguments. The Petitioner, on the other hand, has, by way of Affidavit
dated 19th March, 2012 placed on record the site-plan of the additional strip of
land, as also photographs of the same. The photographs reveal that there is
temporary construction on the additional strip of land. In its letter dated 17th
July, 2018, the L&DO has taken the stand that the allotment of the adjacent
plots is an issue of policy. In any case, it is submitted that there is no policy for
allotment at present.
12. An application for impleadment wasalso filed in the present case by the
owner of the basement of property bearing No.17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New
Delhi, claiming to have purchased it from the Petitioner. He applicant claims to
have filed a complaint against the Petitioner with the authorities for illegal
encroachment on the additional strip of land. The reply filed by the Petitioner to
the impleadment application shows that the Petitioner has raised allegations of
encroachment against the applicant. Therefore it appears to be a dispute also
betweenthe Petitioner and the subsequent purchaser. In any case, the
application for impleadment was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22 nd
April, 2014.
13. The only issue that remains to be considered is whether the Petitioner is
entitled to allotment of the additional strip of land adjoiningproperty No. 17,
Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. This issue has already been considered in
Dharam Raj (supra) and Gian Chand Tuteja (supra), whose facts are very
similar to the present case. In these two cases, the Court has categorically held
that since the Petitioners' predecessors did not accept the allotment offer of the
authorities, allotment cannot be directed.
14. In Dharam Raj (supra), wherein this Court has observed as under:
"18. Insofar as the petitioner's contention that he
is required to be treated at par with other
allottees who have been allotted additional strips
of land is concerned, the L&DO has filed an
affidavit affirming that the Department of
Rehabilitation had allotted additional strips of
land in two cases. One pertaining to the strip of
land adjacent to property No. 72 and the other
relating to strip of land adjacent to plot No. 62 in
the same locality.
19. In this regard it is clarified that the additional
strip of land adjacent to property No. 72 was
allotted in compliance with the order dated
05.01.1989 passed by this Court in
C.W.P.789/1974 captionedSmt Purnima Deb v.
Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors. A
perusal of the said judgment indicates that the
petitioner therein had applied on 08.05.1970 for
allotment of the additional strip of land at the
reserve price pursuant to the instructions dated
23.02.1970. The petitioner's request was not
acceded to as, at the material time, it was found
that the strip of land was between two quarters,
namely, quarter no. 72 and 73, and the petitioner
was called upon to acquire the property by way of
an open auction. As is apparent, the facts in that
case are materially different. In the present case,
the petitioner's predecessor/petitioner was
offered allotment of the Additional Land on two
occasions but the said offer was not accepted.
20. The additional strip of land adjacent to
property No. 62, Rampuri, Harijan Colony,
Kalkaji was allotted in compliance with the
decision in Suit No. 256/1988. In that case, the
plaintiff had deposited a sum of ₹10,000/-
pursuant to the offer made in terms of the letter
dated 31.01.1981. The plaintiff had claimed that
in terms of the policy instructions dated
24.10.1961 the petitioner was entitled to pay the
20% of the reserve price as an initial installment
and the balance in seven equated annual
installments. The plaintiff's case that he was
entitled to pay the balance of ₹40,000/- in
installments was accepted. The petitioner's case
cannot be treated in parity with this case as
well,because he/his predecessor had not accepted
the offer made by the respondent for allotment of
additional land.
21. The petitioner's request for conversion of the
Property from leasehold to freehold has not been
accepted on the ground that the petitioner has
encroached upon the Additional Land. The said
decision cannot be faulted as it is in conformity
with the respondent's policy not to allow
conversion in cases where the lessees have
encroached upon public land."
15. Similarly, in Gian Chand Tuteja (supra), the ld. Single Judge
followed Dharam Raj (supra) and observed as under:
"15. There is no dispute that the Additional Land
belongs to the Government of India and the
petitioner has illegally occupied the same. It is
apparent from the facts that on two prior occasions,
respondent nos. 1 and 2 had offered to allot the
Additional Land to the petitioner's predecessor -
once on 07.12.1970 and thereafter, on 31.08.1981.
On both occasions, the petitioner's predecessor in
interest had failed to accept the said offer within
the stipulated time. Having failed to accept the offer
and pay the requisite cost, the petitioner can claim
no right over the Additional Land.
16. The only issue that requires examination is
whether the petitioner is entitled to claim allotment
of the Additional Land on the basis of the current
policy. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner
that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had
issued a circular dated 07.01.2003, whereby it was
recommended that any vacant piece of land which
is adjacent to a plot of land allotted to any lessee
may be allotted to the lessee at market rates. The
petitioner contends that in view of the said
Circular, the petitioner is entitled to acquire the
Additional Land at market rates.
17. In addition to the above, it was also contended
that respondents have allotted such additional
strips of land to similarly placed allottees and,
therefore, the petitioner could not be discriminated
against and was required to be treated at par with
such allottees.
18. The aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the
decision of this Court in Dharam Raj v. Union of
India &Ors.: W.P. (C) 3271 of 2008 decided on
25.02.2019. In view of the said decision, the
petitioner's case that he is entitled to allotment of
the Additional Land is unmerited, and is thus,
rejected."
16. This Court has examined the present case. The Petitioners in the writ
petitions mentioned in paragraph 1 are similarly placed. The decisions in
Dharam Raj (supra) and Gian Chand Tuteja (supra) clearly cover the
present writ petition. The request for allotment of additional land cannot be
acceded to as the said land belongs to the Government, though the same is
under illegal occupation of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner's
predecessor had failed to accept the offers given by the Government on not
one but two occasions. The payment not having been made at the relevant
point of time and the land admittedly not belonging to the Petitioner, no relief is
liable to be granted in the present petition.
17. The present writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. All pending
applications are disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
APRIL27, 2020
DJ/T
