Man Singh v. Union Of India

$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 673/2017 MAN SINGH ..... Appellant Through:

Mr. Sunil Dalal, Advocate

Versus

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Dev. P. Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Standing Counsel with Ms.

Jyoti Tyagi, Advocate for respondentL&B/LAC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. GAUBA

O R D E R

% 17.10.2017 C.M. 37374/2017 (u/S 5 of The Limitation Act) For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned. The application is disposed of.

LPA 673/2017 & C.M. 37373/2017 & C.M. 37375/2017 The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order of 15th September, 2016 of the Single Judge, vide which appellant's claim for alternative plot on account of acquisition of his land was rejected. The rejection order was affirmed by the Single Judge. The appellant's claim is that the appellant had 1/3rd share in the property admeasuring 33 bigha LPA 673/2017 Page 1 of 2

12 biswas in village Dichaon Kalan, Najafgarh, New Delhi and that the entire lands were acquired. The Single Judge noticed that appellant was left with undivided share in other khasra numbers and consequently, concluded ratio of Supreme Court decision in Delhi Administration Vs. Jai Singh Kanwar in Civil Appeal No. 8289/2010, decided on 14th September, 2011.

This Court had the occasion to deal with an identical issue in a batch of appeals in Ranjeet Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & anr. In LPA 173/2017, which were decided on 27th September, 2017. The Court was of the opinion that where the lands sought to be acquired are left with the land owners, rejection of a claim for alternative plot is not arbitrary. The ratio in the decision in Delhi Administration (Supra), squarely applies to this case.

The appeal and pending applications are accordingly dismissed with aforesaid observations.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J R.K. GAUBA, J OCTOBER 17, 2017 r LPA 673/2017 Page 2 of 2