Delhi High Court
Sh Mange Ram vs The Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 September, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order : 15th September 2022
+ W.P.(C) 13353/2022
SH MANGE RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Thakur, Advocate
versus
THE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following
reliefs:-
"a) Issue a writ of mandamus or an ·order,
direction in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ provision for issuing a writ of mandamus or
certiorari or any other appropriate writ against the
respondent by set-asiding the rejection order dated
20.09.2019 in respect of the alternative plot passed
by the respondent and allow the recommendation of
alternative plot to the petitioners in lieu of their
acquired land.
b) Pass the direction for reconsider the matter of
the petitioners' case/application for alternative plot
by the competent officials of the respondent having
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
vast legal knowledge of scheme laid down by Govt.
of NCT of Delhi in respect of alternative plots by
remanding the matter.
c) Pass any other or further relief, which this
Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper under the facts
and circumstances of the case in favour of
petitioner and against the respondent."
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner had applied for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of
acquisition of his land under the Scheme dated 2nd May 1961 for "Large
Scale Acquisition Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi"
(hereinafter "Scheme of 1961") in the year 2011 and submitted all the
requisite documents in the 2019 and 2021, however, he did not receive
any satisfactory reply from the office of the respondent. Vide order dated
20th September 2019, the respondent rejected the application of the
petitioner for allotment of alternative plot on the ground that certain
agriculture land remains in the name of the petitioner.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner does not have any part of the land
as has been observed by the respondent in the impugned communication
dated 20th September 2019.
4. It is submitted that as per the Scheme of 1961, the petitioner is
entitled for alternative plot as all other villagers, whose land was acquired
and who had received the alterative plot under the scheme and petitioner
cannot be deprived from the same entitlement. In this respect, the
petitioner had given representation to the respondent on 26th August 2022
for reconsideration of his case and allow the allotment of alternative plot
in his favour.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
communication dated 20th September 2019 is liable to be set aside.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
vehemently opposed the instant petition and submitted that there is no
error or illegality in the communication bearing F.No.
SDM(HQ)/SW/2019/3179/66226 dated 20th September 2019.
7. It is submitted that the recommendation committee and the scrutiny
committee considered the case of the petitioner and found that the certain
portion of the land still remains in the name of the petitioner. Therefore,
the instant petition is liable to be dismissed for being of any merit.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The subject matter of the Scheme of 1961 was „Control of land
values in the Urban Areas of Delhi- Acquisition, development and
disposal of land‟ which came into force on 2nd May 1961 and has been
modified from time to time. The Scheme for Large Scale Acquisition
Development & Disposal of Land in Delhi 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.
10. The objective of the Scheme of 1961 suggests as under:-
"The scheme of providing developed residential plots
to farmers whose lands are acquired for planned
development of Delhi is a rehabilitation measure"
11. This objective has also been reiterated by this Court as well as the
Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various cases. A coordinate bench of this
Court in Jai Singh Kanwar vs. Union of India, 2008 SCC OnLine Del
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
492, made the following observations:-
"7.2 Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full
Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley explained the rationale for
the policy was to see that the population of Delhi is
properly housed and has the means for acquiring
residential houses and further that if a person has
bought a residential plot privately and the State
chooses to acquire that land at a very meagre price,
then surely it is the duty of the State to give an
alternative plot at a moderate price to those persons
who have been deprived of possible residential houses,
which they could have constructed on the land they
have acquired"
12. Further, in Surender 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
rehabilitative measure; meaning thereby that it was to
rehabilitate those farmers whose land had been
acquired as they had become homeless or landless."
13. In State of M.P. vs. Narmada Bachao Andolan, (2011) 7 SCC
639, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court elaborated on the general principle and
provisions for rehabilitation and observed as under:
"Land acquisition and rehabilitation : Article 21
26. It is desirable for the authority concerned to
ensure that as far as practicable persons who had
been living and carrying on business or other activity
on the land acquired, if they so desire, and are willing
to purchase and comply with any requirement of the
authority or the local body, be given a piece of land
on the terms settled with due regard to the price at
which the land has been acquired from them.
However, the State Government cannot be compelled
to provide alternate accommodation to the oustees
and it is for the authority concerned to consider the
desirability and feasibility of providing alternative
land considering the facts and circumstances of each
case.
27. In certain cases, the oustees are entitled
to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is meant only for
those persons who have been rendered
destitute because of a loss of residence or livelihood
as a consequence of land acquisition. The authorities
must explore the avenues of rehabilitation by way of
employment, housing, investment opportunities,
and identification of alternative lands.
"10. ... A blinkered vision of development,
complete apathy towards those who are highly
adversely affected by the development process
and a cynical unconcern for the enforcement of
the laws lead to a situation where the rights
and benefits promised and guaranteed under
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
the Constitution hardly ever reach the most
marginalised citizens." (Mahanadi Coalfields
Ltd. case [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias
Oram, (2010) 11 SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ)
450 : JT (2010) 7 SC 352] , SCC p. 273, para
10)
For people whose lives and livelihoods are
intrinsically connected to the land, the economic and
cultural shift to a market economy can be traumatic.
(Vide State of U.P. v. Pista Devi [(1986) 4 SCC 251 :
AIR 1986 SC 2025] , Narpat Singh v. Jaipur
Development Authority [(2002) 4 SCC 666 : AIR 2002
SC 2036] , Land Acquisition
Officer v. Mahaboob [(2009) 14 SCC 54 : (2009) 5
SCC (Civ) 297] , Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias
Oram [Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Mathias Oram,
(2010) 11 SCC 269 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 450 : JT
(2010) 7 SC 352] and Brij Mohan v. HUDA [(2011) 2
SCC 29 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 336] .) The fundamental
right of the farmer to cultivation is a part of right to
livelihood. "Agricultural land is the foundation for a
sense of security and freedom from fear. Assured
possession is a lasting source for peace and
prosperity." India being a predominantly agricultural
society, there is a "strong linkage between the land
and the person's status in [the] social system".
14. Hence, it is evident that the Scheme of 1961 was introduced as a
means to provide for those whose land is acquired for the purposes of
development and to ensure that such persons are not rendered homeless
or landless in the event of such acquisition.
15. The relevant portion of the impugned communication is reproduced
hereunder:-
"The Scrutiny Committee had examined the case on
the basis of available record and the government
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
guidelines. A factual report of halka patwari (3/N)
was also placed before the committee in which
mentioned that the agriculture land is remaining in the
name of applicant. The entire land of applicant was
not acquired. Hence, he is not eligible for alternative
plot.
Since, the case does not fall under the category of
eligible applicant for allotment of alternate plot, the
Scrutiny Committee has decided to not to recommend
the case of Sh. Mange Ram S/o Ram Pat for allotment
of alternate plot.
The recommendation of Scrutiny Committee and the
record on file has been considered by the
Recommendation Committee and it is decided to reject
the case of Sh. Mange Ram S/o Ram Pat for allotment
of alternative plot."
16. In the instant matter, the relevant condition, which became the
ground for rejection of the petitioner‟s application, was that the entire
land of the petitioner was not acquired. 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 act 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.
17. These conditions which stood under paragraph 10 of the Scheme
are reproduced hereunder:-
"10. The following conditions shall govern the
allotment of land whether by auction or otherwise to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
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
Cantonment. The question of making an exception in
the case of persons 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 within 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 his
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 exceptional circumstances.
Thereafter the permission to sell will be given to the
Chief Commissioner. In both the cases, 50% of the
unearned increase in the value of the plot will be paid
to the Government before the transfer is
permitted....."
18. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
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."
19. The conditions stipulated in this matter have stemmed from the
Scheme of 1961 and its subsequent amendments and hence, have to be
given foremost importance while making an application for allotment of
alternative plot and while its consideration by the concerned authority.
20. Upon receiving and considering the application of the petitioner,
the concerned department carried out the necessary inquiry to adjudicate
upon the application of the applicant and upon such enquiry, by the report
of Halqa Patwari it was found that the entire land of the petitioner was not
acquired and he had certain portion of land left with him which made him
ineligible for consideration of his application for allotment of alternative
plot. The petitioner was clearly not rendered landless after the land in
question was acquired. As per the Scheme, and as per the interpretations
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
of the Division Bench of this Court in the aforementioned matter, it is
found that as long as an applicant is left with a part of his land or owns an
alternative accommodation, the fact whether the same is inside or outside
village abadi area would be irrelevant.
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. The very structure of the Scheme
suggests that it is a welfare and rehabilitative measure for those affected
by the actions taken in the process of development of the State of NCT of
Delhi. Being considered for compensation, whether monetary or in the
form of alternate plot, is an entitlement which is available to individuals
who fulfil the criteria provided for under the Scheme. Those who lose
their homes or their agricultural lands, that are the only source of their
livelihood, are the custodians 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.
22. Since, the very purpose of the scheme for allotment of alternative
plot is to provide for those who do not have any land left, residential or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
agricultural, subsequent to their land being acquired, and even the
conditions laid under the Scheme provide for the ineligibility on account
of ownership of a land, it is found that the case of the petitioner does not
fulfil the eligibility criteria and hence, he was rightly found not entitled to
the alternative accommodation under the Scheme.
23. Keeping in view the observations and discussions in the foregoing
paragraphs and the facts and circumstances, it is found that there is no
error apparent on the face of record or any gross illegality in the
impugned communication dated 20th September 2019 passed by the
concerned authority while deciding the application for allotment of
alternative plot.
24. This Court does not find any merit in the instant petition since the
petitioner cannot claim a benefit that does not accrue to him.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.
25. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
gs/ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:19.09.2022
18:37:45
