Azad Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3131 Del

                                         NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192




                             *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                             %                                  Date of order: 25th November 2022

                             +     W.P.(C) 16289/2022
                                   AZAD SINGH                                          ..... Petitioner
                                                       Through:      Mr. Pankaj Vivek, Advocate

                                                       versus

                                   GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR                          ..... Respondent
                                                       Through:      Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate

                             CORAM:
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH

                                                             ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral) CM APPL. 50990/2022 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 16289/2022

1. The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other similar writ or direction thereby quashing/setting aside order dated 18.02.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 2 w.r.t. File No. F.31(55)/41/2003/ L&B/ALT./SW10010 (Annexure P-1); and

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other similar writ or direction thereby

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

directing the Respondent No. 2 to make a recommendation to the Delhi Development Authority to allot an alternative plot in favour of petitioner in accordance with the Scheme Of Large Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal Of Land ln Delhi, 1961, as per his seniority no. 890;"

2. The Petitioner is an original inhabitant of Village Dhool Siras, Delhi and was possessed of ancestral agricultural land situated in revenue estate of Village Dhool Siras, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, District South-West Delhi. The entire agricultural land belonging to the Petitioner was acquired by the Government of NCT of Delhi and compensation was paid to him on 30.11.2002.

3. The Petitioner was provided with an Application Form with Serial No. 2642 for allotment of alternative plot in order to seek allotment of alternative plot under the scheme of Large-Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961.

4. A letter dated 18th November 2013 bearing no. F.31(55)/41/03/L&B/ALT/13152 was addressed to the Petitioner and certain documents were sought from the Petitioner. The requisite documents were submitted by the Petitioner on 23rd December 2012 in the office of the L&B Department. Thereafter, the case of the Petitioner was put up in the meeting of Recommendation Committee on 2 nd April 2014 and the Committee directed that information be sought from the LAC and some documents may be furnished by the Petitioner. The documents sought from the Petitioner were as follows:

a) Clarification in respect of property no. 249-1, 2nd Floor, Rama Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi-67

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

b) Status of Kh. No. 228(2-19)

5. After that another letter dated 29th April 2014 was issued by the Land and Building Department asking him that if the information asked for was not submitted before 1st May 2014, the case shall be closed. Thereafter, the Petitioner immediately wrote a letter on 29 th April 2014 requesting for some time to furnish the required information. The Petitioner submitted the Tehsildar's report of Kh. No. 228 as well as copy of rent agreement of property no. 249-1, Rama Market, Munirka Village to show that the properties were situated in Village Abadi.

6. Vide letter dated 10th February 2015, the Petitioner was intimated that his case for allotment of alternative plot has been rejected in the meeting held on 26th November 2014 on the ground that the Petitioner had stated that he did not own the property in Village Munirka whereas he has submitted copy of rent agreement of the said property showing him as landlord. By representation dated 17th September 2015, the Petitioner sought a review of his case as the same was rejected due to a typing error by the Petitioner inasmuch as the Petitioner erroneously typed that he did not have a property in Village Abadi. It was pleaded by the Petitioner that if he had any intention to hide the Property No. 249-1, Rama Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi, then he would not have submitted copy of the rent agreement showing himself as landlord.

7. Receiving no reply to his representation dated 17th September 2015, the Petitioner filed a civil writ petition bearing no. 3024/2016 which was disposed of with the following order:

"4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, I find that since positive case of

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

petitioner is that the aforesaid properly is in abadi area, therefore, the onus shifts upon the first respondent to get it verified from the concerned Municipal authority as to whether the aforesaid property is in urbanized area or not. If the property in question is not found to be in urbanized area, then a report be called from the concerned SDM as to whether the aforesaid property falls in abadi area of village Munirka, New Delhi or not.

5. In view of above, first respondent is directed to give a speaking response to petitioner's Representation (Annexure P-23) within a period twelve weeks and if it is found that the aforesaid property is in abadi area, then petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot be reconsidered by the authority concerned. .

6. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of."

8. Aggrieved with the non-compliance of the order dated 24th August 2018, the Petitioner filed a civil contempt petition bearing no. 268/2021. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the Respondent no. 2 scrutinised the case of the Petitioner for allotment of alternative plot and rejected the same vide order dated 18th February 2022 on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation with Petitioner.

9. Aggrieved with the rejection of his application for allotment of alternative land, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has made the following arguments in support of the instant writ petition:

a. The application of the Petitioner could not be rejected on the ground of owning of alternative plot on the ground of owning land/house in abadi of urbanised village as those properties are

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

required to be ignored for the purposes of allotment of alternative plots.

b. The ground of rejection that the applicant should not own any residential plot in Delhi (and including the residential abadi plots/houses for considering the eligibility) has rendered the scheme as redundant.

c. The manner of implementation is leading to an absurd situation inasmuch as every person who is a bonafide landowner in Delhi is a resident of Village meaning thereby that such person who owns agricultural land necessarily has a residence in Village abadi. Therefore, if the rule is to be applied in the manner as is being applied every bonafide villager stands disqualified. d. The manner of implementation suffers from Wednesbury unreasonableness because if the intent of the State was to provide for upliftment of the villagers whose lands were acquired and to make them participants in the benefits of urbanisation, then the landowners who hold abadi plots cannot be held to be disqualified. e. The approach taken by the Respondent cannot be sustained as the purpose and object of allotment of alternative plots to land-owners whose land is acquired is to give them an opportunity to progress in life by being able to live in a standard developed colony instead of rustic life in Village abadi.

11. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has submitted that if the scheme has been introduced by the Government to enable the citizens to have a roof over their head does not mean that the scheme is meant for the enrichment of people. It is also

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

submitted that in view of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is now settled that if a person is having any plot against acquisition made, he is not entitled for alternative plot. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the competent authority and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed being devoid of any merit.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The issues to be adjudicated by this Court are:

Issue 1- If the person is having a plot/constructed house in the Village Abadi would he be entitled for alternative plot under scheme of 1961?

13. This Court has perused the impugned order and finds it apposite to look at the contents of the same for proper adjudication of the matter. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 18 th February 2022 is reproduced hereunder: -

Whereas an opportunity of Personal Hearing was provided to Shri Azad Singh Tokas s/o Shri Bharat Singh Tokas R/o 123, Chaudhary Mohalla, V.P.O. Dhoolsiras Delhi- IIOO77 through a Notice dated 28/O1/2022 to attend a Meeting of Scrutiny Committee fixed for 07/O2/2O22 at 3.00 P.M. but he did not attend.

Whereas High Court of Delhi had disposed off WP (C)/3024/2016 titled AZAD SINQH V/s GOVT. of NCT of Delhi and ANR. on August 24 2018 with the direction to give a speaking response to petitioner's representation and if it is found that the aforesaid property is in abadi area then the petitioner's application for allotment of alternate plot we reconsidered by the Authority concerned.

Whereas the "aforesaid property" as mentioned in the High Court of Delhi's Order August 24 2O18 is H. No.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

249/1, 2nd Floor, Rama Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi 110067. As per the rent agreement dated

29.O3.2O13 it is clear that Mr. Azad Singh Tokas is the absolute owner of this property.

Whereas Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgement dated l4.O9.2O11 in Civil Appeal No. 8289/2O1O and 8290/2010 titled Delhi Development Authority V/s Jai Singh Kanwar, had held that "the object of the scheme is that when the land owned by a person is taken away in entirety and 'he is left without any house or plot, he should be allotted a plot. The scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not owns a house/residential plot will be entitled to apply."

Whereas Since in the instant case. Mr. Azad Tokas is the owner of property bearing address H.No. 249/1 2 ndd Floor, Rama Market, Munirka Village, New Delhi.110067, as per the Supreme Court's Judgement mentioned above, he is not entitled to apply for an alternative plot. Scrutiny Committee has thus decided to reject the case of alternative plot to Shri Azad Singh Tokas S/o Shri Bharat Singh Tokas R/o 123, Chaudhary Mohalla, V.P.O. Dhoolsiras Delhi- 110077 .

In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement mentioned above and on the basis of the documents/records placed in the file, the Scrutiny Committee has decided to reject the case for allotment of an alternative plot to shri Azad Singh Tokas S/o Shri Bharat Singh Tokas R/o 123, Chaudhary Mohalla, V.P.O. Dhoolsiras Delhi-110077

This issues with the prior of the competent authority."

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

Answer to Issue 1-

14. In the instant matter, the relevant conditions, which became the ground for rejection of Petitioners application, were that they held house/land in the village Abadi area and were not landless.

15. The condition of holding a plot/residential accommodation being a bar for consideration of application of allotment of alternative plot is bar which finds mention in the first as well as the subsequently modified version of the Scheme of 1961. The availability of an existing plot in the name of the owner or any of his dependent, including his/her spouse or even unmarried children, creates a bar on the eligibility of the person to have an alternative plot allotted in his/her favour.

16. The subject matter of the Scheme of 1961 was Large Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi which came into force on 2nd May 1961 and has been modified from time to time. The Scheme not only provided for measures for controlling value in urban areas but also largely regulated the conditions stipulated for acquisition, development and disposal of land.

17. In Surinder Singh Mann vs. Government of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) 12306/2015 decided on 25th August 2017, a coordinate bench of this Court observed as under:-

"7 At this stage, it would also be useful to extract the eligibility criteria of the Government which had been approved by the Government of NCT of Delhi in the year 1961 dealing with allotment of alternate plots. The object of the scheme reads as under:-

"The scheme of providing developed residential plots to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure" 8 The object thus clearly being to provide developed residential plots to farmers whose land had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi; this being a rehabilitative measure.

XXX

12 .... The Policy of the Government as is evident from the scheme was to provide residential plots to farmers whose land had been acquired; it was a rehabilitative measure; meaning thereby that it was to rehabilitate those farmers whose land had been acquired as they had become homeless or landless."

18. However, the Scheme for alternative plot does not confer a direct and absolute right to any person whose land is acquired. The Scheme provides for conditions under paragraph 10, which were updated and modified with time and as per requirements. These conditions acted as eligibility criteria for the land owners whose lands were acquired and who became entitled to be considered for allotment of alternate plot, subject to the conditions laid.

19. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the first Scheme are reproduced hereunder:-

"10. The following conditions shall govern the allotment of land whether by auction or otherwise to individuals (including those whose land has been acquired):

a) No plot should be allotted to any person, who or whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children owns a house or residential plot of land in Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. The question of making an exception in the case of persons

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

living in a congested locality or whose family has out- grown should be considered after some experience has been gained of the working of the scheme.

b) The allotee of a plot should be required to construct the house in accordance with the sanctioned plans with two years of the date of allotment, failing which the land would be liable to be resumed.

c) The allottee of a plot shall not sell or transfer rights in the plot or part thereof for a period of 10 years from the date of allotment except with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner which will be given only in Exception circumstances. Thereafter the permission to sell will be given by chief commissioner. In both the cases, 50% of the unearned increase m the value of the plot will be paid to the Government before the transfer is permitted....."

20. With subsequent amendments and modifications in the successive years, the Scheme ultimately provided for the following eligibility criteria for allotment of alternate plot:

"1. The persons who are RECORDED OWNER prior to issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

2. The persons whose lands have been acquired must have received the compensation as rightful owners from the LAC/Court and the Govt. has taken the possession of acquired land.

3. The applicants should not own a house/residential plot/flat out of village abadi in his/her dependent relation's name including unmarried children, nor he should be a member of any Co-operative Housing Society.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

4. For awards announced prior to 3.4.86, the land acquired is not less than 150 square yards and for awards announced post 3.4.86, the land must not be less than one bigha."

21. An examination of the objective of the Scheme read with the observations made in the abovementioned judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, definitively and unambiguously indicate that the Scheme of 1961 is targeted to those individuals, villagers, farmers etc. who may be rendered homeless or landless upon their land being acquired by the Government, or any Authority under it, for the purposes of development.

22. Those who lose their homes or their agricultural lands, which are the only source of their livelihood, are the beneficiaries of schemes like these and rightly so need to be facilitated as soon as possible. Such individuals, owners, villagers, farmers and their families cannot and should not be left remediless after their land is acquired. However, it should also be borne in mind that in garb of such welfare schemes, those who have alternative and effective means of sustaining a life do not take unfair advantage of the schemes and welfare provisions of the Government and its Authorities.

23. Keeping in mind the objective of the Scheme, it is found that enforcing an eligibility criterion for consideration of application of allotment of alternate land is not unreasonable or unfair and is in fact required for ensuring that the active and effective measures reach those who are in need.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

24. In the instant matter, the perusal of the contents of the impugned order reveals that the Petitioners owns property in the village abadi. As discussed above, the position is clear for those individuals whose land has been acquired and who seek alternative accommodation or plot; they are to fulfill the necessary conditions of the Scheme of 1961, in consonance with the objective the Scheme seeks to achieve.

25. The Division Bench of this Court in Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Veerwati, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1444, and its connected LPAs, held that there are four requisite conditions for consideration while filing and adjudicating the application for allotment of alternative plot. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

"3. In the year 1961 the Government formulated the scheme for allotment of alternate plots to those land owners whose land is acquired for planned development of Delhi and the land so acquired is placed at the disposal of the DDA. The allotment of alternate plot under this policy was subject to his satisfying, beside others, following conditions: --

a) The application must have been filed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the compensation.

b) He should be recorded owner of the acquired land prior to the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act.

c) He must have received the compensation for the said land as a rightful owner and the possession of the acquired land has been taken by the Government. d) Neither he nor his spouse nor any of his dependent children own any residential property in Delhi."

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

26. Therefore, this Court does not find force in the argument of the Petitioners that as per the modification in the year 1993 in Scheme of 1961, if an applicant owns a land in village abadi, it will not create a bar for recommending him for allotment of alternative plot. It is pertinent to refer to Ranjeet Singh vs. Govt (NCT of Delhi), 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10794, wherein it was observed as under: -

"24. As far as the first contention is concerned, that the executive's interpretation that the landowner should not be left with any lands at all is contrary to the letter of the scheme, this Court is unpersuaded by the argument. The object of the scheme clearly stipulates that it is to provide alternative plots to "farmers whose lands are acquired". To take the logic of the appellants, conceivably, one individual may own land in four different parts of Delhi, in three different villages. To say that if portions of land in two villages, affecting two pieces of such landholding are acquired, he would still answer the description of a farmer whose lands are acquired would be stretching the meaning and intent of the scheme. The broad understanding of the authorities and officials of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, who considered Jai Singh Kanwar (supra) and granted or allowed applications only where no lands were left at all, with the land owners, is, from this perspective, wholly reasonable. The object, as we understand, of the scheme is not to provide all landowners whose lands are acquired but only to extend benefit to those who lost all their landholdings due to acquisition.

55. The Court notices that the appellants' argument that ownership of land or residential property in the village or extended abadi is not to be construed as a bar is, no doubt, justified. Yet, the fact that a dispossessed land owner has ownership or possession of a residence in the village, ipso facto, cannot entitle him or her to make an enforceable

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56 NEUTRAL CITIATION NO. 2022/DHC/005192

claim for allotment of alternative plot. Particularly when the left over lands with appellants are urbanized ones."

27. Therefore, Petitioner cannot claim that he has a right to allotment of alternative land merely because he owns a land in the village abadi.

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any illegality, impropriety or error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order dated 18th February 2022 passed by the concerned Authority. There is no reason to interfere with the said impugned order passed on the application of the Petitioners.

29. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

30. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.

(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH) JUDGE NOVEMBER 25, 2022 Aj/Mg

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:DAMINI YADAV Signing Date:29.11.2022 12:49:56