The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raghubir & Anr. vs The Secretary, Department of Land and Building (Alt) consisting of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh opined that the quintessential conditions required for invocation of welfare schemes cannot be given a blind eye.
Facts
This writ petition under Article 226 was filed on behalf of the Petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus /appropriate writ directing the Respondent to make a recommendation of alternative plot as per law.
The land of the Petitioner no. 1 was acquired in u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and handed over to the beneficiary department whereby compensation was paid to the Petitioners. The application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted by the Petitioner no.1 which was rejected since as per the policy, the applicant did not fulfil the requirement of 1 bigha for consideration for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land. All the surviving members then relinquished their share in favour of the Petitioner no.1 to increase his share beyond 1 bigha and consequently, the Petitioners then again approached the Respondent for the allotment. However, there was neither any reply nor action on behalf of the Respondent even after a notice and a judicial order. Respondent rejected the case of the Petitioners represented vide legal notice observing that the relinquishment deed in favour of the Petitioner no.1 was not registered. Petitioner then got the same registered and served another legal notice. Aggrieved with no response, this petition was filed.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: It was contended that as per Respondent’s policy, Petitioners have fulfilled all the requirements for allotment of alternative plot and despite that no action has been taken for reasons best known to them. It was also contended that Respondent has a legal duty to make recommendation of an alternative plot to the persons whose land have been acquired by the Respondent. So, by not allotting an alternative plot, the Respondent failed in their legal duty.
Respondent: It was contended that the application of the Petitioner no.1 was rejected and the said order is still in force and has attained finality as it has not been set aside by any judicial pronouncement. So, the Petitioners are not eligible for allocation of any alternative plot. It also contended that the landowner whose land is acquired does not have the vested right to seek allotment of alternative plot in view of the law laid down he is only entitled to be considered for such allotment if he satisfies the other conditions.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that in Amrit Kumari vs. Asst. Housing Commissioner & Ors., it was held that a scheme for allotment of alternative plots is purely a welfare scheme formulated to rehabilitate the farmers whose land had been acquired. Relying on other such cases it opined 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.
It concurred with the arguments of the Respondent that the Scheme for alternative plot does not confer a direct and absolute right to any person whose land is acquired but provides for conditions which act as eligibility criteria for the landowners whose lands were acquired and who became entitled to be considered for allotment of alternate plot, subject to the conditions laid. It further noted that 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 the garb of such welfare schemes the quintessential conditions required for invocation of the same cannot be given a blind eye. So, Respondent rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner no.1, as one of the essential conditions for allotment of alternative plot was that the land acquired with the applicant must not be less than one bigha which was not satisfied in the case of the present Petitioners.
Moreover, this application was to be mandatorily filed within one year from the date of receipt of the compensation. Respondent was not bound to grant the application of the Petitioners even though the Petitioners have now satisfied all the requirements for allotment of alternative plot as it is not bound to consider multiple applications on the same subject more so when the subsequent application was a result of afterthoughts and barred by limitation. It also opined that a legal notice served cannot be considered as equivalent to a valid representation being made to an Authority.
Judgment
The Bench found no merits in this petition and dismissed it accordingly.
Case: Raghubir & Anr. vs The Secretary, Department of Land and Building (Alt)
Citation: W.P.(C) 3485/2017
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh
Decided on: 19th September 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
