Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Rana v. Govt. Of NCT Delhi And ANR.
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2905/2015 PRAVEEN KUMAR @ PRAVEEN RANA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. V.P. Rana and Mr. S. Gumber, Advs.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT DELHI AND ANR.
..... Respondents Through Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
O R D E R
% 11.08.2016 The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 27.08.2014 wherein his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot had been rejected on the ground that he still had excess land left and the entire land had not been acquired. This communication dated 27.08.2014 had relied upon the ratio of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Singh in C.A. No.8289/2010 decided on 14.09.2011.
The petitioner is aggrieved by this communication. His submission is that this letter of rejection is neither correct on facts and nor on law. Contention is that the petitioner had only 2 bigha and 8 biswas in Khasra No. 75/23 Min, village Khera Kalan of agricultural land which was admittedly acquired. The land measuring 2 bigha and 2 biswas was residential and 6 biswas (being within laldora) was an industrial plot. This has been stated by him in para 5 of the petition.
Attention has also been drawn to the documents in support thereof. The documents at pages 20 & 21 states that 1 bigha and 1 biswa; 5 1⁄2 biswas and another 51⁄2 biswas of land were sold on 10.05.2010 and thereafter another 1 bigha and 1 biswa of land had been sold by the petitioner in khasra No. 106/246 on 10.01.2013. This sale is admittedly after the date of the award; the Award passed in this case is in the year 2002. Submission is however reiterated that the petitioner had only 6 biswas of industrial plot left with him which is not a residential plot. He is accordingly entitled to an alternate allotment.
Record shows that the land in question comprising of 2 bigha and 8 biswas (forming part of khasra No. 75/23 situated at Village Khera Kalan, Delhi) was acquired on 27.10.1991. This was pursuant to the Notification issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 05.05.2000. Award dated 30.05.2002 was passed. The petitioner had applied for an alternate plot on 07.02.2003. A communication dated 07.01.2013 was issued to him asking him to submit documents. On 27.08.2014 his claim for alternate allotment had been rejected and the reasons have been noted supra.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. This affidavit states that the documents produced by the applicant, nowhere state that the applicant on affidavit had stated that he did not own a plot or a flat or a residential house or that he was not a member
of any Co-operative Housing Society; this was the fundamental requirement for making an application; this was absent; the object of the scheme was not met with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that consolidation proceedings of this village had taken place. He was although originally allotted 4 bigha and 16 biswas of agricultural land but pursuant to these Consolidation Proceedings 2 bigha and 8 biswas remained as agricultural land; 2 bigha and 2 biswas became residential land and 6 biswas was an industrial plot. The submission that it was pursuant to the Consolidation Proceedings that the nature of the land which was admittedly earlier agricultural land (4 bigha and 16 biswas) has now changed has nowhere been averred in the petition. This writ petition does not speak a word of the change of the use of the land in the said Consolidation Proceedings.
It was on repeated queries put to the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has come up with this strategy informing the Court that the nature of the agricultural land (which was originally 4 bigha and 16 biswas) became 2 bigha and 8 biswas as agricultural land; 2 bigha and 2 biswas became residential land and 6 biswas was an industrial plot. At the cost of repetition, this change of use of the land in the consolidation proceedings has nowhere been mentioned in the writ petition. This therefore did not give a chance to the respondent to answer this oral submission.
Be that as it may, since it is the record which speaks, this Court
is of the view that the record as emanating clearly shows that out of 4 bigha and 16 biswas of land, 2 bigha and 8 biswas had been acquired. The submission of the petitioner that 2 bigha and 2 biswas of land had been sold vide documents at pages 20 & 21 on 10.05.2010 and 10.01.2013 to four different persons namely Vinay Aggarwal, Seema Gupta, Vivek Kumar and Vidya Saini also do not form a part of the pleading in the writ petition. It has nowhere been mentioned in the body of the petition that the said land was sold to either of the aforenoted four persons. On the date of the Award petitioner admittedly had land left with him which he sold much later i.e. in the year 2010 and 2013. At the cost of repetition, this fact now argued that 2 bigha and 2 biswas of land had been sold on 10.05.2010 & 10.01.2013 to the aforenoted four persons does not find mention in the writ petition, even otherwise these sales were after the acquisition proceedings.
The rejection letter, in this background, noting only 2 bigha and 8 biswas of land had been acquired out of 4 bigha and 16 biswas which was originally owned by the petitioner suffers from no infirmity.
The judgment of Jai Singh Kanwar squarely applies to the facts of the instant case.
This Court is in agreement with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. Para 6 of the aforenoted judgment reads herein as:-
""Neither the application nor the documents produced by the applicant Om Singh Kanwar averred or established that Chhajju Singh did not own a plot or flat or residential house and that he was not a member of any Co-operative Housing Society. In the circumstances, the fundamental requirement for making an application was absent. 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. The first respondent did not deny the fact that the Chhajju Singh did own a house in the year 1969. That apparently is the reason why he did not apply under the scheme.
Nearly a decade after his death, an application was made by one of his sons. But what is to be considered is the position of the land loser on the date of the award. Therefore the appellant, who is one of the grand sons of Chhajju Singh is not entitled to seek allotment of a plot under the scheme by suppressing the fact that Chhjju Singh owned a house in 1969."
It would be fully applicable.
Since the entire land of the petitioner has not been acquired, it could not be said that the petitioner has become homeless or landless; he had still a roof to cover his head; land not having been acquired in entirety, his application for allotment of an alternate plot was rightly rejected. The whole object of this policy which has been framed
firstly in the year 1961 which was followed subsequent by the policy framed in the year 1964 was to provide succour to those persons who are completely landless or not having any house to live in. The object of both the policies was to combat such a situation. The object of the scheme at the cost of repetition was to give relief to those landless persons whose land had been taken over in entirety. This not being the situation in the present case, the letter of rejection suffers from no infirmity.
Petition is without any merit. Dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J AUGUST 11, 2016