Rattan Singh v. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & ANR

>1 $-34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 34/2015 & C.M. No.60/2015 RATTAN SINGH Petitioner Through Mr.Vikas Mehta, Mr.Raj at Sehgal and Mr.Karandeep Khanna, Advocates.

versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR Respondents Through Mr. Puneet Aggarwal and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advs for R-1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Ms. Jyoti Tyagi, Advs for L & B.

Department.

Mr. Dhanesh Relan, standing counsel for the DDA.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

ORDER

> % 14.09.2016 File taken up today as 13.9.2016 was declared holiday. The petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 01.10.2014 vide which his application seeking allotment of an alternate plot in lieu of his acquired land had been rejected. The rejection letter had quoted the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Sin^h Kanwar decided on 14.09.2015 in C.A. No. 8289/2010 holding that since the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired, he was not entitled By:AMULYA

y-y to allotment of an alternate plot.

Contention is that the judgment of Jai Sin^h Kanwar has been wrongly applied. The Scheme does not envisage a situation that until and unless the entire land of the party has been acquired, he is not entitled to be considered for an alternate plot. Additional submission is that the alternate plots had been granted to other persons which is also discriminatory. Counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.l states that after acquiring land vide Award No.27/2002-03 the land left with the petitioner was 21 bighas and . 6 biswas in Village Dhoolsiras. Thus the land of the petitioner not having been acquired in its entirety, the ratio of the aforenoted judgment (Jai Sinsh KcLnwctr) would apply.

Record substantiates this submission. The petitioner has himself in his petition stated that the total land in village Dhoolsiras was 142 bighas and 3 biswas. After acquiring land vide vide Award No.27/2002-03, the remaining land is 21 bighas 6 biswas.

Second submission of the petitioner that a relative of the petition had been granted an alternate plot again does not come to the rescue of the petitioner as admittedly even if a plot was considered in favour of the relative of the petitioner, it was prior to the judgment of Jai SinQh Kanwar pronounced on 14.09.2011. This submission is admitted and has not been controverted. The admitted fact thus is that the entire land of the petitioner had not been acquired. The balance land left with the

petitioner was 21 bighas 6 biswas (as per the Department). The judgment of Jai Simh Kanwar noted supra would be fully applicable.

Para 6 of the judgment is relevant. It reads herein as under:- "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 object of the Policy (whether old policy of the year 1961 or the new policy of the year 1986) was to provide succour to those persons who were left completely landless/homeless on the acquisition of the land; they did not have any house to live in. An alternate plot was envisaged for such persons whose land had been acquired in its complete entirety and they did not have any shelter. Those who had alternate covers i.e. roofs over their heads, were not entitled to an alternate plot. The rejection letter in this background suffers from no infirmity. Petition is without any merit. Dismissed. INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 14, 2016 ndn