AMIT GARG vs THE SECRETARY (ALT.) LAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ANR
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 11 July 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 21 August 2024 + W.P.(C) 1371/2013 & CM APPL. 2592/2013, CM APPL. 10233/2013, CM APPL. 4617/2021, CM APPL. 36756/2021, CM APPL. 56209/2023 AMIT GARG & ANR. ….. Petitioners Through: Petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. J. Amal Anand, Ms. Alisha Sharma and Mr. Elvin Joshyy, Advs. for petitioner No.2. versus THE SECRETARY (ALT.) LAND BUILDING DEPARTMENT GOVT OF NCT of DELHI & ANR. …..Respondents Through: Mr. Mayank Arora, Mr. M.S. Akhtar and Mr. Sunil Jha, Advs. for R-1/L&B. Ms. Manika Tripathy, Standing Counsel with Mr. Rony John, Adv. for R-2/DDA. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T
1. The petitioners are invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for issuance of a writ, order or direction, thereby seeking the following reliefs:
I. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the respondent no. 1 to send the necessary information as demanded by the respondent no. 2 for allotment of
an alternative plot, in the interest of justice. II. An appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to” the respondent no. 2 to stay the auction of the plots, till the petitioner is allotted the plot as per entitlement; III. A direction or order directing the respondent no.2 to reserve one plot for petitioner as per the entitlement. IV. Any other order which this Hon”ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The genesis of the instant writ petition lies in the order dated 27.09.20121 passed in W.P.(C) No. 475/1999, whereby this Court directed the respondents to consider granting alternative allotment of an industrial plot to the petitioner. Before proceeding further, it would be imperative to refer to the factual narrative of the present matter, the inception of which can be traced back to the year 1947.
3. Succinctly put, the father of the petitioner i.e., Shiv Lal, (since deceased) was an active partner in M/s Raja Ram Brij Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) in 1947. On 14.07.1953, the Firm purchased a land measuring Area 4 Bighas 17 Biswas viz., 4,890 Sq. Yards out of Khasra No. 632-633 in the revenue estate of Village Peeragarhi, Delhi2. On 06.01.1964, respondent No.1/Secretary (Alt.) Land and Building Department, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD”), (hereinafter referred to as the Department) acquired the Subject Property of the petitioner vide award No.1658, and accordingly, compensation was paid to the Firm so much so that in the year 1967, the learned ADJ3 enhanced the amount of compensation, which was also duly paid to the Firm.
4. Axiomatically, the petitioner-Shiv Lal filed an application for
1 Impugned Order 2 Subject Property
3 Additional District Judge 4 Delhi Development Authority
alternate allotment in 1973 which stood rejected for the reason that it was filed in his name and not in the name of the Firm. Later, in the year 1981, pursuant to a policy mooted by respondent No.2/DDA4, Shiv Lal, the then petitioner, filed another application for alternative allotment on 15.12.1981 in lieu of the Subject Property acquired by the respondents, but the same was also rejected vide communication letter dated 11.12.1987.
5. However, in February, 1994, respondent No.1/Department forwarded 10 names to the DDA for allotment of industrial plots, which included the name of the petitioner-Shiv Lal. Intriguingly, in the year 1997 i.e., after three years, the DDA informed the petitioner, thereby repudiating the fact that there was any policy for alternative allotment of industrial plots in lieu of the Subject Property acquired by them.
6. Consequently, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 475/1999 but later, died in the year 2003 and his son Amit Garg was substituted as a legal heir in the said writ petition. However, it appears that in the pending writ petition i.e., W.P.(C) No. 475/1999, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat to enable the parties to negotiate for an amicable settlement and a short affidavit dated 23.04.2012 was filed by the respondent inter alia to allot a residential plot in view of his ostensible claim for the industrial plot. Based on the aforesaid facts, this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 27.09.2012, thereby passing the following directions:
9.To say the least, on the aforesaid aspect respondent-DDA ought to have obtained clarification from the fourth respondent and should not have remained silent. Once fourth the respondent forwards the name of petitioner and other similarly situated persons to respondent-DDA to be considered for allotment of industrial plot then question of eligibility is not an issue and respondent-DDA cannot be heard to say that the names forward by the fourth respondent to it in February, 1994 were not recommendations. In effect, it was a recommendation though it does not spell out that plot of what size and in which zone is to be allotted. Thus, petitioner succeeds in making out a case only for being considered for allotment of a residential plot and of what size and in which zone it is to be allotted. This respondent-DDA has to see and to obtain clarification in this regard from the fourth respondent. It is true that no right to be considered for allotment of an alternate plot was certainly there, which was prolonged by petitioner by making successive representations/reminders. So, in view of afore-going narration, petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation and if legal heirs of petitioner complies the mandatory requirement for allotment then allotment of alternate residential plot available be made by respondent-DDA at current cost and not at the cost in the year 1994. 10. In light of the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with direction to respondent- DDA to consider petitioner”s case for allotment of an alternate residential plot at current cost, by giving an opportunity to petitioner to fulfil the eligibility conditions, regarding which respondent- DDA shall seek clarification from the fourth respondent i.e. Director/ Secretary, Land and Building Department of Government of NCT of Delhi at Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi. The needful be done preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from today after affording an opportunity of Representation and hearing to petitioner within two weeks and thereafter to communicate to petitioner the decision taken in this regard, so that petitioner may avail of the remedy as available in law, if required.
7. In compliance of the Impugned Order, respondent No.2/DDA wrote a letter bearing No. Misc (2002)07/HC/Legal/6197 dated 22.11.2012 to respondent No.1/Department demanding the particulars of the persons recommended, the zone, size, eligibility and seniority of the petitioner/date of taking over the possession of the land, among
others details but the same was otiose as no reply was received from the Department and when the respondents did not comply with the Impugned Order, a contempt petition i.e., CONT.CAS(C) No. 106/2013 was filed by the present petitioner-Amit Garg, wherein this Court vide order dated 08.02.2013, passed the following order:
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment dated 27.9.2012 rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 475/1999. 2. Issue notice to show cause to the respondents as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated. Learned counsel for the respondents enter appearance on an advance copy and seek time to file reply/compliance affidavit. Let reply/compliance affidavit be filed within four weeks from today. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. It is made clear that in case the order dated 27.9.2012 has not been complied with, the same shall be complied with before the next date of hearing positively 3. List on 8.5.2013.
8. Even after passing of the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2013, no action was taken by respondent No.2/DDA, and hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 01.03.2013. It is pertinent to mention that although respondent No.1 filed an application No. 503/2013 for review of the directions dated 27.09.2012 passed in CWP No. 475/1999, the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.10.2013. In the ensuing period, when no reply was received by the DDA from the concerned Department to the letter dated 22.11.2012, respondent No.2/DDA filed a counter affidavit dated 08.03.2013 stating that the DDA allots alternative residential plots on the basis of the recommendation letter received from the concerned Department i.e., Land and Building Department and as no reply was received in this regard, the petitioner was not allotted any plot.
9. After considering the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, this Court vide order dated 04.04.2013 directed respondent No.2/DDA to keep reserve for the petitioner a plot measuring 250 sq. yards in a Developed Sector/Zone of Rohini or Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Resultantly, on 09.07.2013, the DDA filed an application seeking modification of the aforesaid order and placing reliance on a circular dated 24.11.2005, it was stated by the DDA that no alternative plots can be allotted in the Developed Areas” and allotments can be made only in the Upcoming Projects”.
10. Presently, the petitioner has filed this second writ petition seeking allotment of an alternate plot as also a stay on the auction of plots by the respondents. This Court on a prima facie view of the matter, vide order dated 21.01.2016, found that there was an unexplained delay of more than three years in compliance of the Impugned Order which had attained finality, and therefore, officials of the respondents were liable to be proceeded against for contempt. The names of the officials who were responsible for non-compliance of the Impugned Order were also placed on the record.
11. It is pertinent to point out that the brother of the petitioner i.e., Samir Aggarwal, was impleaded as petitioner No.2 in the present case. Perusal of the record shows that the matter lingered on and eventually, vide orders dated 25.11.2019 and 18.12.2019, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.2/DDA by Mr. Prashant Kumar, Deputy Director, dated 30.11.2021, whereby minutes of the meeting dated 08.04.2021 were filed, which read as under:-
Minutes of the meeting dated 08.04.2021 in WPC No. 1371/2013 & CM Nos. 2592/2013, 10233/2013 & 31521/2019 titled as “Amit Garg Vs The Secretary (Alt), Land & Building Department and Anr” A brief of the case, Policy & Guidelines for deciding the application for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land and Land Acquisition details of the applicant was presented by the officers of DDA, Land & Building Deptt., Govt. of NCT of Delhi, and LAC/ ADM, West, Govt of NCT of Delhi. The chronology of the events in the case is as under: Brief history
1. Land measuring 4 bigha 17 biswa out of Khasra No. 632 and 633 situated in village Garhi Peeran presently known as Peeragarhi was acquired for planned development of Delhi vide Award No. 1658 dated 22.11.1963. Notification u/sec 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 bearing No. F.15(111)/59-LSG was issued on 13.11.1959 and declaration u/sec 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was made vide notification No. F.4(30/63-L&B dated 08.04.1963.
2. The said land was owned by a partnership firm namely M/s. Raja Ram Brij Lal (in short “Firm”).
3. One of the partners of the Firm namely Sh. Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner) had 1/4 share in the firm.
4. The compensation was duly paid to the Firm on 26.12.1964 and later the enhanced compensation awarded by Court of Additional District Judge was also paid to the Firm on 30.11.1983 through Amit Garg, the petitioner.
Request for alternative plot
5. That Sh. Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner) applied for alternative residential plot in his individual name before land & Building Deptt, Govt of NCT of Delhi. The said application was rejected in the year 1973 on the ground that the applicant was not the recorded owner of the land.
6. The petitioner remained silent till the year 1981 and no challenge was made to the said rejection order.
7. That in the year 1981 vide letter dated 15.12.1981 (18 years after acquisition of land and 8 years after rejection of his earlier application), another application was moved by the Sh Shiv Lal for allotment of alternative plot (Industrial cum Residential) before land & Building Deptt. Govt of NCT of Delhi. That on 15.12.1981 (of the same date), another application was moved by the said partnership firm for allotment of
alternative plot (residential). The said applications were also rejected and communicated vide letter dated 11.12.1987.
8. The said rejection letter dated 11.12.1987 was not challenged by the partnership firm. However, after a gap of three years, the Firm sent reminder letter in the year 1990 for allotment of alternative plot.
9. Thereafter, the application of Sh Shiv Lal (father of the petitioner) dated 28.12.1981 for allotment of alternative industrial plot was forwarded to DDA alongwith 10 other applications vide letter dated 21.2.1994 of the Land & Building Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi for consideration and final decision, if any.
10. DDA vide its letter dated 16.5.96 informed the petitioner that there is no such policy to allot alternative industrial plot. And hence the request of the petitioner for allotment of alternative industrial plot was rejected.
Court case WPC No. 475/1999
11. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court bearing No. 475/1999 titled as Shiv Lal Vs UOI which was decided vide judgement dated 27.9.2012 wherein the court directed “DDA to consider petitioner’s case for allotment of an alternate residential plot at current cost, by giving an opportunity to petitioner to fulfil the eligibility conditions, regarding which DDA shall seek clarification from Secretary, Land & Building Department of Government of NCT of Delhi at Vikas Bhavan, New Delhi.”
12. DDA in pursuance of the said judgement sent a letter dated 22.11.2012 to Land &Building Department.
13. The case of the petitioner was put up before the recommendation committee of Land & Building Department, GNCTD on 4.1.13. The minutes of the meeting in respect of petitioner’s case is as under:-
The case of the petitioner was considered by the committee and decided that petitioner may be asked to file his representation and after giving him an opportunity for personal hearing the document, if any needed may be obtained from the applicant and be placed for consideration of the committee. The decision of the committee shall be communicated to DDA accordingly” LOK ADALAT CASE NO ILA 221/2001
14. During the pendency of the Writ Petition 475/199, the petitioner had approached Lok Adalat (No. LA-221/2001). As per one of the orders dated 10.05.2005, Mr. N.K. Thukral, AD (Indl) appeared before Lok Adalat and stated that there is no
vacant industrial plot at this stage and as such no allotment can be made. However, if the petitioner accepts, he can be offered commercial or residential plot. The petitioner accepted that he can be offered commercial or residential plot. However subsequently, as per order dated 18.7.06, Presiding Officer, PLA observed that “I have heard the parties. There is no meeting ground between the parties, the case is closed as unsettled. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum/court for redressal of his grievances if he is so advised.
Contempt Petition Cas. (C) No. 106/2013
15. The petitioner also filed a contempt petition bearing Cont. Cas. (C) No. 106/2013, which was disposed of on 17.9.13 as not pressed for.
Action of DDA
16. DDA again in light of court order dated 27.9.2012 requested Land & Building Deptt., GNCTD vide letter dated 11.1.2017 to forward clear recommendation for allotment of alternative plot.
WPC No.1371/2013
17. The petitioner filed another writ petition before the Delhi High Court bearing No. 1371/2013, wherein the Hon’ble court directed vide order dated 18.12.2019 that Secretary, Land & Building Deptt., GNCTD and Vice Chairman, DDA would convene a meeting in the matter and the result of the meeting be placed by way of a report.
Guidelines for allotment of alternative plot
18. As per guidelines for allotment of alternative plots, where a property is owned by a firm not being a registered company, the allotment of land would be made to individual parties in accordance with their share defined in the partnership deed subject to their fulfilling the prescribed conditions.
Facts and findings
19. In the instant case Sh. Shiv Lal was one of the partners in the partnership Firm.
20. That Sh. Shiv Lal is now being represented by one of his sons Sh. Amit Garg for allotment of alternative plot. The legal status and the share of the applicant Shri Shiv Lal in the firm was never disclosed to Land & Building Department, Govt of NCT of Delhi and hence could not establish the eligibility of Shri Shiv Lal nor any details of the legal heirs of Sh. Shiv Lal were
ever filed to claim alternative plot on behalf of Sh. Shiv Lal. Further, Land & Building Deptt also does not know as to whether the conditions as laid down in the Policy/guidelines for allotment of alternative plot are fulfilled by the petitioner or not and is eligible for allotment of alternative plot or not. Sh. Shiv Lal while making an application in the year 1981 did not file any NOC from other partners of the firm.
21. In view of the facts of the case as above, petitioner has no claim for allotment of alternative plot as per policy dated 02.05.1961 relating to allotment of alternative plot.
Sd/- Sd/- Secretary Vice Chairman Land & Building Deptt. DDA Govt of NCT of Delhi
12. In view of the above, Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/DDA vehemently urged that the compensation towards acquisition of land had already been given to the Firm i.e., M/s. Raja Ram Brij Lal Aggarwal and to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who were evidently in possession of the premises at the time of its acquisition. It was vehemently submitted that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and there was no policy by the DDA as per which the petitioners were entitled to allotment of any alternate residential or industrial plot.
13. Per contra, the petitioner No.1, who is hard of hearing, argued his case in person. The queries raised by this Court as well as submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA were explained to him by one counsel appearing in another matter, who was waiting for his turn. In the course of submissions, reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv
Devi Wirrley v. Lt. Governor, Delhi5.
14. The petitioner No.1 has urged that several persons who were similarly affected by the acquisition of their land had been allotted alternative plots but he has been singled out and his claim has been rejected. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 vehemently urged that this Court in its order dated 21.01.2016 has already recorded that the impugned directions passed by this Court dated 27.09.2012 have attained finality and the respondent-DDA is duty bound to allot an alternative plot to the petitioners.
5 AIR 1987 Delhi 46 (Full Bench)
ANALYSIS AND DECISION:
15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on meticulous perusal of the record, it is quite apparent that the grounds which have been taken by the respondent-DDA in the present proceedings had not been espoused in the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No. 475/1999. Although this Court sought copies of the pleadings in the aforesaid Writ Petition, in particular, the counter-affidavits, if any, filed by the DDA, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-DDA submitted that no such record was available. The petitioners too expressed their inability to produce any record of such pleadings. In view of the same, it would be apposite to refer to the observations with regard to the defence, if any, raised by the respondent-DDA in the earlier writ petition i.e., CWP No.475/1999, which goes as under:-
6. It is true that no vested rights accrues in favour of the petitioner to seek alternate allotment of industrial plot but certainly as per respondents policy, claim for allotment of
residential plot in lieu of acquisition of petitioners land, survives for consideration. In the additional counter filed by respondent-DDA in January, 2009 regarding its policy to allot alternate residential plot, it was stated that in the absence of compliance with mandatory requirement of the policy to allot alternate residential plot was not possible to provide alternate residential plot to petitioner. 7. At the hearing of this petition, when it was put to respondent”s counsel as to what was the non-compliance of the policy requirement due to which alternate residential allotment could not be made to petitioner, no satisfactory explanation was furnished. Neither it stands disclosed in the additional counter by respondent-DDA as to what was the non-compliance due to which alternate allotment of residential plot could not be made to petitioner. 8. Even in the short affidavit of 23rd April, 2012 filed by the respondent-DDA, the stand taken is that this matter was referred to respondent”s Lok Adalat where the petitioner had agreed for allotment of residential plot in lieu of his ostensible claim for the industrial plot an application forms for allotment of industrial plot forwarded by the fourth respondent to respondent-DDA were found to be without any particulars of the zone, size, eligibility and seniority of petitioner in allotment list. 9. To say the least, on the aforesaid aspect respondent-DDA ought to have obtained clarification from the fourth respondent and should not have remained silent. Once fourth respondent forwards the name of petitioner and other similarly situated persons to respondent-DDA to be considered for allotment of industrial plot then question of eligibility is not an issue and respondent-DDA cannot be heard to say that the names forward by the fourth respondent to it in February, 1994 were not recommendations. In effect, it was a recommendation though it does not spell out that plot of what size and in which zone is to be allotted. Thus, petitioner succeeds in making out a case only for being considered for allotment of a residential plot and of what size and in which zone it is to be allotted. This respondent-DDA has to seek and to obtain clarification in this regard from the fourth respondent. It is true that no right to be considered for allotment of an alternate plot was certainly there, which was prolonged by petitioner by making successive representations/reminders. So, in view of afore-going narration, petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation and if legal heirs of petitioner complies the mandatory requirement for allotment then allotment of alternate residential plot available be made by respondent-DDA at current cost and not at the cost in the year 1994. {bold portions emphasized}
16. It may bear repetition that the operative directions passed in CWP No. 475/1999 vide paragraph (10) are already quoted above in paragraph (6) of this judgment, and therefore, not repeated for the sake of brevity.
17. The long and short of the directions passed in CWP No. 475/1999 was that the petitioner-Shiv Lal (now represented by his legal heirs) was made entitled to be considered for allotment of an alternate residential plot at current costs by giving him an opportunity for fulfilment of the eligibility conditions subject to relevant clarifications being sought from respondent No.4 i.e., the Land & Building Department, GNCTD. Although evidently, a contempt petition bearing No.106/2013 was filed and certain directions came to be passed, the reliefs remained an illusion, and therefore, there is no gainsaying that the present writ petition is in a way seeking relief in the nature of execution or enforcement of the earlier directions passed by this Court in CWP No. 475/1999. It needs to be reiterated that the industrial land of the deceased petitioner-Shiv Lal, when he was a partner in the aforesaid Firm, was acquired vide Award No. 1658 dated 06.01.1964 and it is an admitted fact that the compensation had been paid to the Firm. Though much was urged that the petitioner in the earlier writ petition bearing CWP No. 475/1999 had concealed material facts from the Court and was guilty of delay or laches, I am afraid, the said aspect cannot be gone into in the instant writ petition since the said objections were considered and rejected in the earlier writ petition and the findings shall operate as an issue Estoppel or constructive Res Judicata. However, since an issue is sought to be
raised as to whether or not the petitioner (now through his legal heirs) was entitled to alternate residential accommodation on acquisition of his industrial land, needs to be answered after looking into the policy decision to that effect.
18. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant paragraphs in the earlier judgment titled Jai Singh Kanwar v. Union of India6, wherein this Court carried out an extensive exercise to elaborate upon the policy of the Government of India for allotment of alternate plots in lieu of the land acquired in Delhi. The relevant observations are reproduced in extenso as under:-
6 2008 SCC OnLine Del 492
6.1 Before dealing with the issues that arise for determination, it is necessary to set out in brief the background to the policy of the Government of India for allotment of alternative plots in lieu of lands acquired. The large-scale acquisition of lands for the planned development of the capital city in Delhi commenced in 1957. In order to study the problem of devising measures to control land value and stabilizing the land prices in Delhi, the Government of India set up a Committee which submitted its report on 6th June, 1959. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi also submitted a note to the Government of India regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. Thereafter the Government of India framed a scheme titled Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961. The detailed provisions of the Scheme were set out in the letter dated 2nd May, 1961 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. For the purposes of present case, it is sufficient to note that in para 8 of the Scheme it was stated that as a general policy disposal of developed land should be made by auction and the premium should be determined by the highest bid except in the following cases where land may be allotted at pre-determined rates, viz., the cost of acquisition and development plus additional charges. The first category of the excepted category which had to pay for the alternative plots at predetermined rates were
(i) to individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of
the Chief Commissioner’s notification dated the 7th March, 1957 the 3rd September, 1957, the 13th November, 1959 and the 10th November, 1960 or other subsequent notifications provided that this concession will not be available in the case of individuals affected by the Notification dated the 7th March, 1957 and the September 1957 if the acquisition proceedings have been completed and payment made or deposited in Court by the 1st January, 1961 (a) if a residential plot is to be allotted, the size of such plot subject to the ceilings prescribed may be determined by the Chief Commissioner, taking into consideration the area and the value of the land acquired from the individual and the location and value of the plot to be allotted, and (b) if an industrial plot is to be allotted, its size may be determined with reference to the requirement of the industry to be set up, provided that the setting up of industry is in accordance with the matter plan and the industrialists concerned has the capacity to establish and run such industry and provided further that the extent of land allotted at predetermined rates should not exceed the area acquired from the industrialist concerned. In making such allotment for industries the Chief Commissioner will be advised by an Advisory Committee to be nominated by him. 6.2. In Clause 10 further conditions were imposed when alternative plots were allotted to individuals. These were first, that the person being allotted the alternative plot should not own any other residential plot in Delhi, secondly, that a building should be constructed thereon within two years of the allotment and thirdly that the plot cannot be transferred for a period of ten years from the date of allotment except with the permission of the Chief Commissioner.
6.3. Thus it is seen that the scheme for allotment of alternative plots, although in force from 2nd May, 1961, covered even those acquisitions that were made prior to that date and in particular the large-scale acquisitions of 1957, 1959 and 1960. The scheme of allotment of alternative plots acquired a statutory character under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act) read with the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Rules). The lands acquired by the Central Government and placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), respondent No. 3 herein, for development fell under the category of Nazul lands within the meaning of Section 21 of the DD Act. The elements of the 1961 Scheme were engrafted into the Nazul Rules. The categories mentioned in Clause 8 of the
1961 Scheme were expanded under Rule 4 of the Nazul Rules. 6.4 Subsequently in 1986 the Scheme underwent changes. The task of identifying plots for allotment was entrusted to the DDA although the clearance of an application for an alternative plot was the task of the Land and Buildings Department (Land B) of the Delhi Administration (subsequently the Government of the NCT of Delhi), respondent No. 4 herein. 6.5 These changes to the policy are relevant for the present case and require to be discussed in some detail. On 3rd April, 1986 an office order was issued by the Land B Department of the Delhi Administration which reads as under: Delhi Administration: Delhi Land And Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi. No. F. 37(39)/1/82/Land B/Alt Dated the 3rd April, 1986 OFFICE ORDER In supersession of all previous orders issued on the subject the Administrator, Delhi is pleased to order that following norms should be followed in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the Govt. of India contained in their letter dated 2.5.1961. 1. In order to make the applicant eligible for allotment of alternative plot, the minimum land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi will be one bigha instead of 150 sq. yds. 2. In case the applicant has purchased the requisite land of 1 bigha he should have purchased the land 5 years earlier than the date of notification under Section 4 of the Delhi Land Acquisition Act in order to make him eligible for allotment of alternative plot. 3. Condition No. 2 will, however, not be applicable in respect of ancestral cases. 4. Maximum size of the plot will be restricted to 250 sq. yds. where land acquired is more than 10 bighas. Cases where land acquired is more than 5 bighas but upto 10 bighas plot size of 150 sq. yds. will be recommended and in respect of the cases where the land acquired ranges between 1 bigha to 5 bighas the size of the plot to be recommended will be restricted to 80 sq. yds.
5. The plots will be allotted by DDA on pre-determined rates fixed by the Competent Authority from time-to-time. It is also clarified that these orders shall also apply to all pending
applicants. Sd/- (P. Bhatnagar) Secretary (Land and Building) 6.6 A copy of this order was marked to the DDA for necessary action because by this time the procedure that was followed was that the Land B Department would first screen the applications for their eligibility and entitlement and make a recommendation to the DDA for allotment of the alternative plot. 6.7 This was followed by an order dated 15th September, 1986 which read as under: Delhi Administration: Delhi Land And Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi. No. F. 37(30)/1/82-LandB/Alt 8754 Dated: 15th Sep, 1986 OFFICE ORDER In partial modification of office order No. F. 37(39)1/82-LandB/Alt dated 8.4.1986 regarding the eligibility and entitlement for recommencing the cases to DDA for the allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the acquired land for Planned Development of Delhi. It has now been decided that all applications covering the Awards announced before 3.4.1986, received/to be received in this regard, will be considered according to the norms being followed till the issue of the above mentioned office order dated 3.4.1986. However, the provisions of the Office Order dated 3.4.1986 will apply in respect of all applications received relating to the Awards announced on and after 3.4.1986. All applications considered and rejected in pursuance of Office Order dated 3.4.1986 will, therefore, now be re-opened and considered suo motu and such individual applicants informed accordingly. Apart from the above, all such eligible applicants whose cases were recommended to DDA regarding the size of plots in accordance with the above mentioned office order, will also be revised suo-moto. Sd/- (N. Diwakar) Joint Secretary: (Land and Bldg.)
6.8 A further modification was brought about by an order dated 30th January, 1987 where for the first time it was stated that even if possession of the entire land was not taken, the recommendation
for allotment of alternative plots could be made but it would have to be considered whether not less than 80% of the total land for which the award has been announced should be taken possession of. The said order reads as under: Delhi Administration: Delhi Land and Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi. No. F. 37(39) 82-LandB/3703 Dated: the 30.1.1987. OFFICE ORDER It has been decided that henceforth, the recommendation for the allotment of alternative plots may be made even where the possession of the entire land acquired has not been taken by the concerned departments of the Government/agencies. But the Zonal Officers while scrutinizing such cases will take into consideration the possession of land to the extent of 80% and not lesser than 80% of total land for which award has been announced. It has also been decided that the Harijans and other landless persons of the villages who were allotted agricultural land under 20-point programme of the Government may also be considered for the allotment of alternative plots even if they have been declared Bhumidar/Owner of the land after notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. While examining such cases the Zonal Officer concerned may examine all relevant factors including the orders passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Asstt. by which Bhumidari rights were conferred upon the applicants under Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act. In both these cases mentioned above, other conditions of recommendations for the allotment of alternative plot, pertaining to determination of eligibility of size, etc. will remain the same. Sd/- (G.S. Chaturvedi) Under Secretary (Alt. Allotment)
6.9 The DDA on its part issued a printed version of the scheme of allotment of alternative plots where it clearly indicated the eligibility criteria and the norms for the sizes of plots, the procedure to be followed, etc. Significantly a reference was made to the Scheme contained in the letter of the Government of India dated 2nd May, 1961. It was stated that the plots are allotted by the DDA on the recommendation of this Department as per policy laid down in this regard by Government of Delhi. Relevant to this case it was stated that the persons eligible to apply, in the event that the
land acquired was ancestral, were those who are recorded owner prior to the issue of the Notification under Section 4, LA Act. Further, such persons must have received the compensation as rightful owners. And possession of the acquired land should have been taken by the Government. The applicants should not own a house or residential plot in their own name or name of the near and dependent relations. Lastly for awards announced prior to 3.4.1986 the land acquired is not less than 150 sq. yards and for awards announced post 3.4.1986 the land must not be less than 1 bigha. The norms set out for the size of plots for awards announced before 3.4.1986 was where the land acquired was above 1 bigha and up to 10 bighas the plot size would be 250 sq. yards. Under the sub-heading procedure followed by the Department, there were two columns for documents to be submitted. The first was in case of applicant being recorded owner at the time of Notification under Section 4, LA Act. The other column was if the applicant is not the recorded owner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased recorded owner. In the latter case in addition to the documents required to be submitted by the applicants belonging to the first category, certain other documents like death certificate, heirship certificate, relinquishment deed of other legal heirs and indemnity bond have to be submitted. 6.10 The respondents have placed on record copies of the public notice issued by the Delhi Administration in 1989 informing the public that all persons in whose case acquisition proceedings have been finalized under the scheme of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi for Planned Development of Delhi between the period of 16th November, 1963 and 31st December, 1988, (both date inclusive) may apply in the prescribed form along with all requisite enclosures for recommendation of the allotment of an alternative plot of land in lieu of acquired land in accordance with the policy laid down in his behalf by Delhi Administration from time-to-time so that their application reaches the officer of the Secretary (Land B), D Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, latest by 30.4.1989. Therefore it is clear that even as on 30th April, 1989 the Delhi Administration was prepared to consider applications for the allotment of alternative plot to persons whose lands have been acquired in a 25-year period between 1963 and 1988 for the planned development of Delhi. 6.11 A collective reading of the aforementioned policy changes could be summarized as under:
(i) Since 2nd May, 1961 there was a policy for allotment of alternative plots to those whose lands were acquired under the Scheme of large scale acquisition for the Planned
Development of Delhi. (ii) Subject to fulfillment of the specified criteria the acquired land could be disposed of other than by way of public auction, by allotment at pre-determined rates to certain categories of persons which included individuals. There were conditions which included non-transferability for a period of ten years and completion of construction on the plot within two years from the date of allotment. (iii) The said policy continued notwithstanding the enactment of DD Act. Some of the essential features of the policy were engrafted into the Nazul Rules. The policy therefore took on a statutory character. (iv) Applications were invited for allotment of alternative plots even as late as April 1989. Persons whose lands had been acquired during a 25-year period between 1963 and 1988 could apply up to 30th April, 1989 for allotment of alternative plots. (v) The changes brought about by the office order dated 3rd April, 1986 was that there was a minimum extent of land which had to be acquired (1 bigha) i.e., 1000 sq. yds. approx. before such person could be entitled to alternative plots. As regards the sizes of plot to be allotted it would be 250 sq. yards where land acquired was more than 10 bighas 150 sq. yards when it was between 5 and 10 bighas and 80 sq. yards when it was between 1 and 5 bighas. However as clarified by the subsequent office order dated 15th September, 1986 this changed condition applied only to those awards announced on and after 3rd April, 1986. (vi) The Office Order dated 30th January 1987 stipulated that allotment of alternative plots may be made even where the possession of the entire land acquired has not been taken. However while scrutinizing such cases the authorities had to take into consideration whether possession of at least 80% for total land of which award has been announced has been taken. The said Office Order was prospective. (vii) The procedure announced by the DDA incorporating the features of the policy of the Government for allotment of alternative plots, setting out the eligibility criteria and procedure made it explicit that an application could be made by even a legal heir of the person who was the recorded owner of the land at the time of acquisition. Full Bench judgments of this Court
7.1 The purport of the 1961 Scheme was explained in some of the judgments of this Court which will be discussed presently. In Shiv
Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra), a Full Bench of this Court was considering the question as to who would be eligible to be allotted an alternative plot: a person who was the recorded owner of the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4, LA Act (as held by some benches of this Court) or a person who was the recorded owner at the time of acquisition. The Full Bench explained that the provisions of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 did not apply to these allotments or their transfers since the Scheme was brought into force much earlier in 1961. After analyzing the provisions of the LA Act and concluding that the Government takes over the land only after an award is passed and therefore there was no restriction on the transfer of the land till then, the Full Bench in para 18 (AIR p. 50) held: 18. It is quite clear that any one whose land has been acquired as a result of the Notifications mentioned in Clause 8 of the Scheme is entitled to apply. By anyone is meant: the owner of the land at the time of acquisition and not the owner at the time of the issue of the Notification under Section 4. In fact, there is no impediment in law at all either today or earlier regarding transfers, after the Notification has been issued under Section 4. There is an impediment after the acquisition notice is issued under Section 6, but that too applies after 1972. We have not yet come across a case in which the acquisitions of planned development were made after 1972. We would not like to comment upon them. 7.2 Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley explained the rationale for the policy was to see that the population of Delhi is properly housed and has the means for acquiring residential houses and further that if a person has bought a residential plot privately and the State chooses to acquire that land at a very meagre price, then surely it is the duty of the State to give an alternative plot at a moderate price to those persons who have been deprived of possible residential houses, which they could have constructed on the land they have acquired.
7.3 The next important decision interpreting the clauses of the policy is of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand v. Union of India (supra). The questions considered by the Full Bench here were whether: (a) a person whose lands had been acquired under the Scheme for large-scale acquisition of land for the planned development of Delhi had a vested right to the allotment of an alternative plot in terms of the 1961 Scheme and (b) an allottee of an alternative plot can be asked to pay the pre-determined rates
prevalent at the time of the allotment of the plot or, as contended by the allottees, those prevalent on the date of their making an application. The Court discussed the provisions of the DD Act and the Nazul Rules. The Court concluded that in respect of such lands the provisions earlier made in the 1961 Scheme stand impliedly repealed by the more comprehensive and detailed provisions made later, on the same subject and in the same field, by the Nazul Rules in 1981. The Full Bench found that the categories mentioned in Clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme to whom alternative plots could be allotted had been expanded in Rule 4 of the Nazul Rules. It held (para 24, AIR p. 41) that: The principle expressed in the form of exception in Clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme, which has already been discussed above, is embodied into the Nazul Rules. 7.4 The conclusions arrived at by the Full Bench in Ramanand were: 28. As a result of the above discussions, we find that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules. 34. We, therefore, proceed to answer the second question, and hold that the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of persons, including an individual whose land has been acquired, shall be the predetermined rates in force at the time when the offer is made to the concerned person for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or zone, under Rule 6 of Nazul Rules.
7.5 To recapitulate, the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley decided that even those who had purchased the lands after the issuance of the notification under Section 4, LA Act could apply for allotment of an alternative plot as long as they were the recorded owners at the time of acquisition. In Ramanand the Full Bench pointed out that the 1961 Scheme was now overridden by the Nazul Rules and thus was of a statutory character. The policy of making allotments of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land would be governed by those rules. A person whose lands had been acquired for the Planned Development of Delhi had no absolute right to allotment, but he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes in accordance with the Nazul Rules. Such person, if allotted an alternative plot would have to pay the pre-determined rates in force at the time when the offer is made to the concerned person for allotment of a specific
plot of land in a particular area or zone under Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules. 7.6 In neither of the above decisions did the Court notice the changes brought about in 1986 and 1987 to the 1961 Scheme, which are relevant for the purposes of the present case. Is the claim barred by laches 8.1 The preliminary objection on the ground of laches raised by the respondents is based on the fact that the decision rejecting the claim of Shri Om Singh Kanwar was communicated to him on 23rd October, 1990, and reiterated on 20th February, 1991 and 1st May, 1992 and that, therefore, he could have approached this Court even earlier.
19. A careful perusal of the aforesaid observations by this Court in the above noted case would show that there was certainly a comprehensive policy framed by the Government which was applicable to the DDA for allotment of alternate plots to those persons who had been displaced on acquisition of their land and it was applicable to the case of the petitioner also notwithstanding the apparent delay or laches on his part. At the cost of repetition, the delay and laches were considered and rejected by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2012 in the writ petition bearing No. CWP 475/1999. It may also be reiterated that at no point of time, the DDA disputed the position that the petitioner was not entitled or eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternate accommodation.
20. Insofar as the Land & Building Department is concerned, in its counter affidavit dated 17.09.2013, it was sought to canvass that the Scheme of Allotment of Alternative plot in lieu of the acquired land under Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of land in Delhi had been floated to rehabilitate the agriculturists and since the land of the petitioner, which came to be acquired, was an industrial
land and not an agricultural land, he was not entitled to be covered under the said scheme. However, that issue is water under the bridge since no such fact was brought forth, leading to the passing of the aforesaid directions in writ petition CWP No. 475/1999 vide judgment/order dated 27.09.2012. Be that as it may, the decision in the case of Jai Singh Kanwar (supra) clinches the issue that all persons whose land had been acquired of any kind were entitled to be considered for allotment of alternate accommodation subject to fulfilment of requisite information. All said and done, considering the affidavit of the DDA dated 17.01.2017, the stand of the DDA had always been the same i.e., it was only on the recommendation of the Land & Building Department that they would be in a position to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner.
21. The long story short here is a volte face by the DDA consequent to the order dated 18.12.2019, which led to the holding of meeting of departmental heads, culminating in the minutes of the meeting dated 08.04.2021. The observations of the Committee vide paragraph (19) to (21) in the aforesaid minutes of the meeting are in contradiction to the contents of the letter dated 03.02.2016 by the Land & Building Department to the DDA, whereby it was written as under:-
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT IP ESTATE, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-02 (ALTERNATE BRANCH) No. F.31(18)/20/81/L&B/Alt. 19861-62 Dated 03.02.2016 Sub: W.P.(C) No.475/1999 titled Shiv Lal (Deceased) through LRs. Vs. UOI & Ors. Judgement dated 27.09.2012.
Sir, Please refer your letter No.Misc. (2002)/07/HC/Legal/6197 dated 22.11.2012 vide which you have requested information in relation to the case of Shri Amit Garg S/o Shri Shiv Lal in the writ petition W.P.(C) No.475/1 999. In this regard, please refer our letter No.F.34(Misc.)/74/ L&B/ Alt./4260-70 dated 21.02.1994 vide which this Department had transferred the application of Shri Shiv Lal S/o Shri Chaman Ram along with 10 other applicants to DDA (copy enclosed) for alternative industrial plot as per the decision taken in the meeting held on 09.12.1991 under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi for further necessary action at your end. As desired, the detailed: information of the applicant is as follows- a. Name of applicant: Shiv Lal S/o Shri Chaman Ram b. Date of Section 4 notification: 13.112.1959 c. Award No. & date: 1658 dated 13.11.1959 d. Name of village: Peera Garhi e. Date of possession of land: 13.06.1969 f. Date of receipt of compensation: 07.02.1967 g. Area of the land: 4 bigha 17 biswa (1/4 share) h. Date of receipt of the application: 17.12.1981 Further, it is stated that the application of Shri Shiv Lal S/o Shri Chaman Ram was transferred to DDA vide aforesaid letter which includes all the relevant details to decide the matter. However, photocopies of the application form, LAC report and check memo etc. of the applicant are again attached herewith for ready reference and deciding the case at your end in compliance of order of Hon’ble High Court dated 27.09.2012. Yours faithfully Sd/- (Usha Chaturvedi) Dy. Secretary (Alt.) Copy to: Shri Amit Garg S/o late Shri Shiv Lal R/o G-51/6, Shastri Park, Gali No.2, New Delhi-53 for information please.
22. In view of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the decision arrived at by the concerned officials of the respondents in the meeting held on 08.04.2021 cannot be sustained in law. The
decision arrived at as per the minutes of the meeting dated 08.04.2021 are absolutely contrary to the stand taken by the DDA all these years, whereby they acknowledged considering the case of the petitioner for providing an alternate accommodation in terms of the letter dated 22.11.2012, which was addressed to the Land & Building Department, which never came about for certain inexplicable reasons and the issues which were raised by the DDA were not addressed.
23. All said and done, short of vested right, there was never any dispute about the right of the petitioner for being considered for alternate allotment in terms of the aforementioned scheme and there was never raised any question about the petitioner not supplying any relevant particulars to make himself eligible for allotment of alternate plot. The decision arrived at in the meeting dated 08.04.2021 is in the nature of sabotaging the directions of this Court in CWP No. 475/1999 dated 27.09.2012 and is contrary to their own stand in the affidavit dated 17.01.2017 filed before this Court.
24. Hence, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, in terms of the decision of this Court dated 04.04.2013, respondent No.1/Land & Building Department is directed to allot a residential plot measuring 250 Sq. Yards in any Developed Sector or Zone of Rohini or Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, conjointly in favour of the petitioners at a price prevailing as on the date of filing of the present writ petition i.e. 01.03.2013, which be calculated/computed by the respondent/DDA and be intimated to the petitioners by all permissible modes including through an authorised courier, within six weeks of this judgment.
25. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case wherein evidently, the petitioner has been forced to run from pillar to post and was harassed in several ways, a token cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- is also imposed upon the respondent/DDA towards payment of legal costs to the petitioners, which be paid or deposited with the Registrar General of this Court within six weeks, failing which the respondent/DDA shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the writ petition till realization. It is made clear that in the event of non compliance of the aforesaid directions, the Senior Most Official in the concerned department shall be personally liable for payment of the costs plus interest, which shall be recoverable from his salary.
26. The writ petition is allowed and the pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. AUGUST 21, 2024 Sadiq