Sh. Siya Ram Gupta v. Delhi Development Authority And ORS.

$-10 to 19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 11159/2017 NAVIN GOEL ....Petitioner ....Respondents Mr. Jayendra, Advocate with Mr Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate foi Respondent No. 1/DDA.

Mr. Mayank Bamniyal, Advocate foi'

Respondent No.5.

-tW.P.(C) 11160/2017 SM r. KRITI GARG ....Petitioner DELHI DEVELOPMENJ' AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA.

Mr. Amish Dabas, Advocate foi Respondent No. 3.

Mr. Rajneesh Sharma, Advocate foi LAC/L&B.

By:AMULYA W.P.(C) 1U59/2017& Connectedmatlei's

W.P.(C) 11168/2017 SMT. SUNITA KATARIA ....Petitioner Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.

Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA Mr. Jayendra, Advocate with Mr,- Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No. 1 /DDA.

Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate with Mr. Vinod Kr. Goyal, Advocate for GNCT.

W.P.(C) 11181/2017 KALI RAM ....Petitioner ....Respondents Mr. Jayendra, Advocate with Mr, Shailesh Tiwari, Advocate for Respondent No. 1/DDA.

W.P.(C) 11183/2017 W.P.(C) 11159/20I7& Connected matters

SHYAM SUNDER GOYAL AND ANR.

Petitioners Mrs. Abha Malhotra, Advocate for DDA, Respondent No. I.

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Advocate with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jha and Mr, M.S. Akhtar, Advocates for LAC/L&B/GNCTD.

W.P.(C) 11184/2017 SMT. KAMLESH RANI ....Petitioner Mr. Ajay Verma, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. AAkanksha Kaul, Ms. Shruti Dixit and Mr. Sumit Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No. 1/DDA.

Ms. Ruchika Rathi, Advocate with Mr. Karanjot Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

....Respondents W.P.(C) IIIS9/2017& Connected matters

W.P.(C) 11197/2017 SMT. SHURTI GARG Petitioner DELI-II DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA Mr. Raghvendra Pandey, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

Mr. B. Mahaptra, Advocate for LAC.

VY.P.(C) 11206/2017 GULSHAN KUMAR Petitioner DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS Mrs. Abha Malhotra, Advocate for DDA, Respondent No.

1.

Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate with Ms W.P.(C) 29/2018 SIYA RAM GUPTA Petitioner }V.P.(C) 11159/2017& Connected matters

Through: ■ Mr. Daleep Dhayani, Advocate.

DELHI DEVELOPMEN'r AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.

Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2/GNCTD.

And W.P.(C) 273/2018 & C.M. No. 1107/2018 SMT. SEEMA Petitioner I'hrough:

Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with Mr.

Ajay Birbal, Advocate for DDA

CORAM:

JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ORDER

% 11.01.2019

1. All these petitions arise from a common set of facts and seek similar reliefs and are therefore being disposed of by this common judgment. These petitions were, however, heard independently. W.P.(C) III59/20I7& Connected matters

2. Illustratively, the facts in the first petition W.P. (C) 11159 of 2017 are set out. The prayer in the said petition reads as under: (a) declare the acquisition proceedings qua the land of the Petitioners falling in Plot No. 46-B(part of Khasra No. 28/7) situated at Harijan Basti, Sanjay Nagar, area of Village Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi 110083 as having lapsed in terms of Section 24(2) of the Act 2013."

3. The facts as narrated in the petition are that the Gaon Sabha, Mangolpur Kalan allotted the land in question to the predecessor-in-interest under the 20 Point Programme. In the said programme every allottee was granted lease by issuing LR Form 37 in the year 1974. It is claimed that since then, the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner was in possession and right now, the Petitioner continues to remain in "peaceful possession till date".

4. The certificate issued by the Gaon Sabha has been enclosed by the Petitioner along with the "true copies of the chain of documents". This chain of documents is, in fact, a copy of the notification dated 24''' October, 1961 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (LAA), a copy of the declaration dated 20* July, 1966 under Section 6 of LAA as well as a copy of the Award dated 23''^' April, 1980. It also includes the communication dated 22"^ January, 1983 of the Lt. Governor, Delhi addressed to the Vice-Chairman, DDA stating that it had come to his notice that some of the lands so allotted under the 20-Point Programme had been taken over by the DDA and that the same should be returned "to the development department for allotment in favour of eligible allottees." fV.P.(C) 11159/20I7& Connected matters

5. In response to the petition, a counter affidavit has been filed by the LAC (North West) stating that the Petitioner was not the original allottee but instead was a subsequent purchaser on the basis of an Agreement to Sell, dated 20^'' February, 1995. It is pointed out that the Gaon Sabha allotted 100 sq. yards towards Shyam Lai son of Matoo on this basis for 99 years vide letter dated 2"*^ July, 1974 for construction of residential house. The said Shyam Lai executed the Agreement to Sell in favour of one Ved Prakash in November, 1984. The said Ved Prakash executed the General Power ol: Attorney in favour of one Sh. Atma Ram Goel. However, how the Petitioner thereafter came in possession of the land in question is not clear.

6. It is pointed out that the allotment of the land in favour of Shyam Lai was under the 20-Point Programme and Shyam Lai was not entitled to sell the property. It is categorically averred that "the sale of plots allotted under the 20-Point Programme is ab initio void, the petitioner cannot derive any right, title or interest in the said plot nor can challenge the acquisition proceeding in the present writ petition."

7. It is further submitted that as far as the land acquisition proceedings are concerned, the compensation was assessed in the name of the Gaon Sabha and was remitted to the Reference Court under Section 30-31 of Act, 1894. way back on 29^'' January, 1981.

8. The above counter affidavit was filed on 3'^ April, 2018 and till date no rejoinder has been filed by the Petitioners to contradict the above facts. A W.P.(C) 1J159/2017& Connected matters Page 7 of 8 -

;/ separate counter affidavit has been filed by the Delhi Developmenv Authority (DDA) confirming that the lands in question were originall) allotted to landless persons on lease basis under the 20-Point Programme Enclosed with the affidavit of the DDA are stamped copies of the documents in terms of which the allotment was made.

9. The facts in each of the other petitions forming part of this batch is nc different. It is seen that in each case the original allotment was on lease basil for the limited period of 9 years and lor sums as little as Rs. 2 paisa pes ■ square yards per year. Cleaxdy the allottees who got the land on lease basi' for a limited tenure could not have translqrred ownership, title or any righ^; whatsoever to any subsequent 'purchaser'. The very basis of the presen - petitions has no sanctity in the eye of law as the Petitioners cannot claim an} right or title or interest to the respective lands claimed to be in thei' possession. Therefore, the question of granting reliefs prayed for by any o Ithese petitions in terms of the 2013 Act does not arise.

10. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim order dated 3" .lanuary 2018 stands vacated. The pending applications are also dismissed. V S. MUl^LIDHAR, J SAN JANUARY 11, 2019 ss W.P.(C) I1159/2017& Connected matters Pa}'e 8 of 8