Delhi High Court
The Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. vs Ajay Bajpai & Ors. on 23 January, 2025
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 23.01.2025
+ LPA 56/2025
THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr Sanjay K. Pathak, Standing
Counsel with Ms K.K. Kiran Pathak,
Mr Sunil K. Jha and Mr M.S. Akhtar,
Advocates.
versus
AJAY BAJPAI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms Kritika Gupta with Ms Muskaan
Garg, Advocates for R3/DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in re-filing the
appeal is condoned.
2. The application is disposed of.
LPA 56/2025 and CM APPLs. 4395-96/2025
3. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated
22.02.2024 (hereafter the impugned judgment) passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) 7142/2023 captioned Mr Ajay Bajpai v. Union of India
and Ors. The said petition was filed by respondent no.1 impugning an order
dated 28.03.2023 (hereafter the rejection order) passed by appellant no.2
(hereafter the Scrutiny Committee), whereby it had declined to recommend
respondent no.1's application for an alternate plot in lieu of acquisition of its
lands. The learned Single Judge faulted the said decision. Accordingly, the
Court set aside the rejection order and issued the following directions:
"36. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are directed to consider the
application of the petitioner in view of the observations
herein above and give their recommendation within two
weeks from the date of service of this order. The
recommendation be forwarded to DDA for the appropriate
action. The DDA is directed to allot alternate plot of land. It
is further directed that the process of allotment of plot of land
shall be completed within next six weeks from the date of
receipt of the recommendation.
37. The aforesaid timelines will have to be complied with by
the respondents, particularly keeping in view that the land of
the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 2000."
4. It is submitted on behalf of appellant no.1 that the impugned order is
erroneous and Scrutiny Committee's decision to decline recommending
respondent no.1's application for an alternate plot cannot be faulted as it was
not in dispute that respondent no.1's wife had purchased a residential flat.
5. Mr Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellants earnestly
contended that the question of eligibility for allotment of an alternate plot
has to be considered with reference to the date when the recommendation is
made and not on the date when the property of applicant is acquired. He
submitted that it was conceded that respondent no.1's wife owned residential
flat on the date when respondent no.1's application was considered by
Scrutiny Committee and thus, the same was rightly rejected.
6. The above is the appellants' principal ground of challenge to the
impugned judgement.
FACTUAL CONTEXT
7. Respondent no.1 (hereafter the Applicant) had purchased lands
described as "land measuring 1 bigha in Khasra Number 18/17/1 (0-8) and
18/16/2 (0-12) located at Village Pochan Pur, Delhi" (hereafter subject
land) by a registered Sale Deed on 28.11.1986. The said lands were subject
of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereafter LA Act). The
same were included in a Notification dated 13.12.2001 issued under Section
4 of the LA Act. The said Notification was followed by a declaration dated
07.12.2002 issued under Section 6 of the LA Act. It is material to note that
the subject land was acquired for the purposes of developing Dwarka Phase-
II, Delhi. The award under Section 11 of the LA Act (being award
no.30/2002-03 dated 09.12.2002) was passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector awarding a compensation of ₹4,43,268/- to the Applicant as
compensation for acquisition of the subject land.
8. The Applicant challenged the quantum of compensation given under
the award before the learned Additional District Judge but was unsuccessful.
He had also appealed the said decision to this Court, which was also
rejected.
9. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs had issued a
policy for allotment of alternate plots to land owners whose lands were
acquired under "Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of
Land in Delhi" on 02.05.1961. Since, the said policy (hereafter referred to as
the Scheme) was in vogue, the Applicant had made an application with the
Government of NCT of Delhi (appellant no.1) for allotment of an alternate
plot. The Applicant claimed that he satisfied the eligibility criteria for such
allotment.
10. The Applicant was, by a letter dated 19.12.2013, called upon to
furnish certain documents in support of his application within a period of
fifteen days of the said letter. The Applicant did not furnish the documents
within the stipulated period on account of certain mitigating circumstances.
He claimed that his father was seriously ill and was admitted to Artemis
Hospital, Gurgaon at the material time. He expired on 26.12.2013.
However, the Applicant sent a letter dated 23.01.2014 requesting that the
delay be condoned and sought further time to furnish documents. He
claimed that subsequently by a letter dated 31.01.2014, he furnished all the
necessary documents that were required to be furnished in terms of the letter
dated 19.12.2013. In the meanwhile, he also informed the appellants
regarding change of his address.
11. The Recommendation Committee rejected the Applicant's application
on account of non-determination of the Applicant's eligibility, which in turn
was for want of the necessary documents. This was communicated to the
Applicant by a letter dated 26.03.2015. The said letter also referred to an
earlier communication dated 08.07.2014, whereby the Applicant was called
upon to furnish certain documents. According to the Applicant, he had not
received the said letter as it was sent to its previous address and was
undelivered.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Applicant filed a writ petition
[being W.P.(C) 10579/2015 captioned Ajay Bajpai v. Union of India and
Ors.] in this court. The said petition was allowed by an order dated
02.09.2016. This court had, by the aforesaid order, set aside the rejection
letter dated 26.03.2015 and directed that the Applicant's case be considered
on merit. This court noted that the Applicant's application was within time
and further directed that if the documents had not been furnished by the
Applicant, the same would be furnished within a period of three weeks from
the date of the said order.
13. Pursuant to the order dated 02.09.2016, the Applicant's application
was considered by the Recommendation Committee on 14.06.2018. The
Recommendation Committee recommended allotment of a plot measuring
40 square yards to the Applicant and forwarded its recommendation to the
competent authority. However, it is the Applicant's case that despite his best
efforts to elicit the response from the concerned authorities, he did not
receive any information regarding the fate of his application.
14. In the circumstances, the Applicant once again approached this court
by filing a writ petition [being W.P.(C)1879/2022]. The record of the said
petition indicates that there was inordinate delay on the part of the appellants
in furnishing its response to the said petition. However, during the course of
the proceedings before the Court on 17.01.2023, the learned counsel for the
appellants (respondents in the said petition) submitted that the Applicant's
request for alternative plot was rejected by an order dated 04.12.2019. A
copy of the said order was handed over to the Court during the course of the
proceedings. The said order indicated that the Applicant's application was
rejected on the following reasons:
"As per available record on the file of the applicant residing in
urbanised area and having his/her house/residential plot/flat in
the urban area in the name of his/her own name or in the name
of his/her wife/husband or any of his/her dependent".
15. The Court found the said order to be sketchy and unsustainable and,
accordingly, set aside the same. The Court, by an order dated 18.01.2023,
directed the appellants to take a decision on the Applicant's application for
an alternate plot by 15.02.2023 on the basis of the recommendations made
by the Recommendation Committee.
16. However, the Scrutiny Committee did not take a decision within the
time period as stipulated. The Applicant states that he was called again to
the office of appellant no.2 on 17.02.2023 for seeking certain clarifications
regarding a Sale Deed with respect to the property bearing Plot No.143,
situated at State Bank of India Co-operative House Building Society
Limited, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi. In addition, appellant no.2 also sought
certain clarification with regard to the description of the land mentioned in
the Sale Deed.
17. The Applicant submitted its clarification regarding the Sale Deed of
the said property and in unambiguous terms clarified that he was never the
owner of the said property.
18. Thereafter, appellant no.2 passed the rejection order dated 28.03.2023
once again rejecting the Applicant's application for allotment of an alternate
plot.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
19. At the outset, it is material to note that the rejection order dated
28.03.2023 was passed rejecting the Applicant's application for an alternate
plot on the ground that he owned an alternate accommodation. The operative
part of the order, which encapsulates the ground for rejection of his
application is set out below:
"Whereas the applicant Sh. Ajay Bajpai in his Affidavit
25.01.2017, had declared that he and his family including
dependent relations and unmarried children do not own any plot
/flat/house in territory of Delhi except in village abadi
Pochanpur and he is at present residing in a Flat owned by his
wife, meaning thereby that he had a shelter over his head at the
time of acquisition of his land and at present. As per Supreme
Court's Order dated 14-09-2011, passed in Civil Appeal
Number 8289 of 2010 and 8290 of 2010 titled Delhi
Development Authority versus Jai Singh Kanwar and Ors, Mr.
Ajay Bajpai is not entitled to apply for an alternate plot. His
application for allotment of an alternate plot is accordingly
REJECTED."
20. It is apparent from the above that the Applicant's application was
rejected on the ground that (a) he had some property in the Village Abadi
Pochanpur and (b) that he is currently residing in a flat owned by his wife.
21. The Applicant had stoutly disputed that he owned any property in
abadi of village Pochanpur and had also pointed out that he had issued a
clarification in this regard earlier and had also affirmed the same in the writ
petition.
22. The learned Single Judge noted the same and, accordingly, rejected
the contention that the Applicant's application could be rejected on the said
ground.
23. The principal question is to be addressed is whether the Applicant's
application could be rejected on the ground that he resides in a residential
flat acquired by his wife. There is no dispute that the Applicant's wife owns
a residential flat in Gurgaon where he resides. The impugned order dated
28.03.2023 passed by the Scrutiny Committee had noted the same as under:
"And whereas as per the Conveyance Deed dated 15.02.2021,
Mr Ajay Bajpai is at present residing at Flat Number 402,
Ouraniya, Sector-53, Gurugram, which is owned by his wife
Ms. Kirti Bajpai."
24. According to the appellants, the fact that the Applicant's wife owns a
residential unit, which was acquired on 15.02.2021 would render the
Applicant ineligible for claiming an alternate plot under the Scheme.
25. As noted above, Mr Pathak had stoutly contended that the relevant
date for considering the eligibility under the Scheme for allotment of an
alternate flat/plot is the date of the recommendation and not the date on
which the land owner's property was acquired. He, thus, submitted that
since the Applicant's wife already owns a residential flat, the Applicant does
not meet the eligibility criteria. He relied on the decision of this court in
Surinder Singh Maan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.: 2017 SCC
OnLine Del 10194 as well as the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.: 1986 SCC OnLine
Del 254.
26. We find no merit in the aforesaid contention. First, it is important to
note that neither the Applicant nor his wife owns any property in Delhi.
Concededly, the flat where the Applicant currently resides - as noted in the
rejection order - is located in Gurgaon. The policy does not render the
person, whose family owns a property outside Delhi, ineligible for an
allotment of an alternate plot under the Scheme.
27. We consider it relevant to refer to the eligibility conditions under the
Scheme as disseminated on the website. The said conditions are set out
below:
"WHO IS ELIGIBLE?
I WHERE THE ACQUIRED LAND IS ANCESTRAL
1. The persons who are RECORDED OWNER prior to
issue of notification u/s 4 of 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.
4. For awards announced prior to 3.4.86, the land
acquired is not less than 150 sq. yds and for awards
announced post 3.4.86, the land must not be less than
one bigha.
II CASES WHERE LAND PURCHASED THROUGH SALE
DEED
The following conditions are also to be fulfilled in
addition to above:-
1. For awards announced before 3.4.86, land should
have been purchased prior to issue of notification
U/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and mutation must
have been carried out in their names.
2. For awards announced post 3.4.1986, land must
have been purchased 5 years earlier from the date
of notification u/s 4 of Land Acquisition Act and
mutation has been carried out in the name of the
purchaser.
3. That where the land was purchased by an auction
purchaser from the Ministry of Rehabilitation and
the applicant had entered into a written agreement
with the auction purchaser to buy the same, after
the sale certificate was issued by the Ministry of
Rehabilitation, his case would be processed for
allotment on the basis of agreement and the
compensations awarded by the L.A.C."
28. The eligibility condition that the applicant should not own a
house/residential plot/flat out of a village abadi in his/her dependent
relation's name obviously mentions to a property located in Delhi. The fact
that the Applicant's wife owns a flat in Gurgaon clearly cannot be a ground
for considering the Applicant as ineligible under the Scheme. As noted
above, the said flat is acquired by the Applicant's wife by a Conveyance
Deed dated 15.02.2021, which is much after the date when the Applicant
had made his application for an alternate plot. The learned Single Judge had
rightly observed that a person whose land has been acquired and he has been
dispossessed of the same cannot be expected to live as a vagabond and
acquiring property subsequently would not disentitle the land owner from
being eligible for an alternate property. We also consider it apposite to
reproduce the following extract from the decision of the Supreme Court in
Delhi Development Authority v. Jai Singh Kanwar & Ors.: Civil Appeal
No. 8289 of 2010 and 8290 of 2010, which has been referred to by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment:
"29. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the
respondent nos.3 and 4 is concerned, based on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Jai Singh Kanwar (Supra), this
Court in fact reads the judgment in favour of the petitioner.
The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
"5....Under the Scheme, only a land loser who did
not own a house/residential plot/flat in his own
name or in the name of his spouse or dependent
relation, and who was not a member of any Co-
operative Housing Society was entitled for
allotment of plot....
6....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 own a
house/residential plot/flat will be entitled to
apply."
In that, the petitioner has asserted in the present petition that
he does not own any property or a plot of land in the entire
Delhi, including the village Pochan Pur. Learned counsel had
asserted that the plot of land in village Pochan Pur was the
one which was actually acquired by the respondents and as
such he has no land in Delhi and the same was acquired in its
entirety."
29. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on the
decision of the Full Bench of this court in Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt.
Governor of Delhi & Ors. (supra) is misplaced. In the said case, the Court
had considered the following Clause of the policy for allotment of alternate
plot:
"12. ....
(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. The question of
making an exception in the case of persons living in a
congested locality or whose family has outgrown should be
considered after some experience has been gained of the
working of the scheme."
30. After referring to the aforesaid Clause, the Full Bench had observed
as under:
"13. This shows that a plot can only be allotted to a person
whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations,
including unmarried children do not own a house or plot in
Delhi. Thus, the only beneficiaries under the Scheme of
allotment in lieu of a plot are those who have no house in
Delhi or whose dependent family members, etc., do not have
a house. No other person can get an allotment. If we see the
scheme this way, we will understand that it has a distinct
beneficial quality regarding the public. It is not a gift. It is a
necessity for persons who would otherwise not possibly
acquire any home."
31. It is clear from the above that the observations made by the Full
Bench were in the context of clause that proscribed allotment of any plot to
a person whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations owned
house/residential plot in Delhi, New Delhi or Cantonment. In the present
case, there is no dispute that neither the Applicant/nor his wife owns any
house/residential plot of land in Delhi or New Delhi. The aforesaid decision
also highlighted that the scheme had a beneficial quality as it is for allotment
of the residential units/land to persons who had no house in Delhi.
32. We have reservations regarding the decision of the learned Single
Judge in the case of Surinder Singh Maan v. Government of NCT of Delhi
and Anr.: Neutral Citation No.: 2017:DHC:4810. However, it is not
necessary to examine the same. This is so becuase in the facts of the present
case there is no cavil that neither the Applicant nor his wife owns any
residential unit/land in Delhi.
33. We find that the Applicant has been repeatedly vexed on the decision
of the Recommendation Committee despite the learned Single Judge
returning unequivocal findings in favour of the applicant. We consider it
apposite to refer to the decision of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
1879/2022 captioned Mr Ajay Bajpai v. Union of India and Ors., decided on
18.01.2023. The said order indicates that despite service of notice, the
appellants and the concerned authorities had not filed the counter affidavit.
Finally, the Court was constrained to summon the officials for deciding the
Applicant's challenge to the earlier order holding the Applicant to be
ineligible for allotment of an alternate accommodation. It is material to note
that the appellants had referred to the decisions in the case of Surinder
Singh Maan v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. (supra) as well as in
Smt. Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors. (supra) in the said
proceedings. However, the Court had held that the same were
distinguishable. Admittedly, the said decision has become final.
34. The learned Single Judge had examined the minutes of the
Recommendation Committee and had found that the same had clarified all
aspects of the Applicant's application. The relevant extract of the said
decision is reproduced below:
"19. It is seen that the said Committee consisted of five
senior officials of the Land and Building department. The
above recommendations have clarified all aspects of the
Petitioner's application. The Committee's findings are:
• That the applicant is eligible;
• That the applicant is the recorded owner of the land
which was acquired;
• He was also disbursed the compensation;
• The confusion regarding the khasra number is also
sorted out and clarified;
• The application for alternate plot was within the time
limit;
• The petitioner has given an affidavit that he or his
family members do not own any immoveable
property in the urban area of Delhi;
• He has been recommended for an alternate plot of 40
sq. yards.
20. As against the above detailed recommendations, the
order date 4th December, 2019 is stated to have been passed
on the basis of a Scrutiny Committee Report dated 30 th
September, 2019. Even the said report of the Scrutiny
Committee does not give any details of the property owned
by the Petitioner or his immediate family. The relevant
portion of the Scrutiny Report is set out below:
"The Scrutiny Committee had examined the
case on the basis of available record and the
government guidelines. As per guidelines the
applicant should not own a house/residential
plot/flat (out of village abadi) in the urban area
in his/her own name or in the name of his/her
wife/husband or any his/her dependent relations
including unmarried children. As per available
record on the file the applicant residing in the
urbanized area and having his/her
house/residential plot/flat in the urban area in
the name of his/her own name or in the name of
his/her wife/husband or any of his/her
dependent.
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.
Ajay Bajpai S/o K. S. Bajpai for allotment of
alternate plot."
21. Thus, clearly there is no impediment in the Petitioner
being allotted an alternate plot. At this stage, it is pointed
out by Mr. Mukul Manrai that there is a sale deed dated
13th April, 2000 by one Mr. Jaswant Rai in favour of Mr.
Vinod Kumar Tyagi where the Petitioner has acted as the
Attorney of Mr. Jaswant Rai. Even this may not affect the
Petitioner in as much as the Petitioner is merely described as
a power of attorney holder of Mr. Jaswant Rai. The sale
deed dates back to 2000 and at best shows that the property
has been sold by the Petitioner as a power of attorney holder
for someone. This would not in effect disqualify the
Petitioner as this sale deed showing sale is prior to the
acquisition of the Petitioner's land. The authority would
look into this sale deed and seek a clarification, if needed,
from the Petitioner who shall attend a personal hearing.
22. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no reason to deny relief to the Petitioner. The
decision on the application for alternate plot shall now be
taken by the concerned authorities by 15th February 2023,
on the basis of the recommendation made by the earlier
Recommendation Committee which has considered the
matter in detail and dealt with each and every aspect. The
subsequent objections raised by the Competent authority on
5th September 2018 are without any basis. The order dated
4th December 2019 was never communicated to the
Petitioner prior to the last date of hearing before this Court.
Even the file notings show that the decision to reject was
not communicated.
23. It is, accordingly, directed that the order dated 4th
December, 2019 shall stand set aside.
24. For the conduct of the Respondents in this matter, of
having not disclosed the passing of the order dated 4 th
December 2019 and for having compelled the Petitioner to
approach this Court twice as also the manner in which the
application for alternate allotment has been delayed without
any basis, costs of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the
Respondents which shall be paid to the Petitioner within
two weeks.
25. The present petition is allowed in the above terms. All
pending applications, are disposed of.
26. The Petitioner is permitted to move an application if the
matter is not disposed of within two weeks in accordance
with law."
35. In the given circumstances, we find no infirmity with the decision of
the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the impugned judgment is set
aside.
36. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. Pending
applications are also disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J
JANUARY 23, 2025
RK Click here to check corrigendum, if any
