Bhim Singh v. Land & Building Department & Anr

ORDER 0/o

02.08.2013 CM APPL. 11001/2013 in W.P.(C) CM APPL.l1002/2013 in i Allowed, subject to just exceptions. I W.P. (C) 4848-4849/2013 Page 1 of4 \ Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. W.P.(C) 4841/2013 & 4849/2013 Present writ petitions have been i filed by two brothers under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the order dated 23rd April, 2013 by virtue of which their applications for allotment of alternative plot in, lieu of their acquired land has been rejected. The impugned order passed in ome ilie cases by the Recommencl*ion Committee constituted to recommend· alltitn1ent of alternative plot lS as under:- F.33(47)/38/97-Sardar Singh Slo 98/L&B/Alt Maha Singh (Khera Khurd) · W.P. (C) 4848-4849/2013 The case was considered h}l the Committee and it was observed that i Shri Sardar Singh, the vide this office letter of even number : dated 19. 03. 2013 was to : submit the following docunknts/ ' information:

¶1Relinquishment Deed executfd by i the other legal heirs of the !

¶2Food Card, Election I-Card i'lnd 3 i specimen signature duly attested !

¶3Affidavit in prescribed formqt for i, not owning immovable property in ': urban area of Delhi inclzl!.ding Group Housing Society Membership : details

¶4Indemnity Bond

¶5Status of land not acquired lfllong with complete revenue record. The applicant has filed reply the said letter on 10. 04.13. In said reply he has informed the of the unacquired land along wiith a copy of khatauni for the year 2003-04 which indicates that all of the brothers including the applicairt are Page2 of4 . ' . their share irt : measuring 11-9 which the said land has not been yet. As the land of the has not been acquired in the entirety. in view of the judgment in case titled "Delhi Administration vs. Jai Singh Kanwar, (C.A. No. 8289 of 201 lP, dt. 1419111 of SCI), the case is RE1ECTED. Though Mr. J.V. Rana, leamed counsel for the petitioners • admits that petitioners are owners of o1lliter agricultural land approximately four bighas each, he points out that petitioners had given of undertaking to respondents stating that they will not claim altematiive plots · for remaining land, if acquired. Consequently, he submits that petitioners • are entitled to allotment of an alterria1iv·e plot. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjee!V Sahay, learned fur • respondents states that the present conltroversy is squarely coveretl by the : judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Authoritj · Jai ·. Singh Kanwar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 828912016 decided: on 14th September, 2011. Having heard the learned counSel fur • parties, this Court is · df thei opinion that petitioners do not have a legal vested right for of an: alternative plot in lieu of their land. The respondents art;! plots to persons whose lands have been acquired under a welfare Consequently, only those who fulfil the eligibility criteria shall be entitled to allotment under the said Rehabilitation Scheme. W.P. (C) 4848-484912013 3;of4 ... 1""-.., '!\ v' \ I The Supreme court in Delhi De,veldpment Authority vs. Jai Si.,gll , Kanwar & Ors. (supra) has mentioned 'that one of the eligibility co:m.didons for allotment of alternative plot is that applicant should neither own a house/residential plot/flat in a village abadi in his own name or in the name of his spouse or his dependent relatitihs nor he be a member of any co-operative housing society. Thereafter ;the Supreme Court has dbserved as under:- "6. . .... The object of the Schern,e 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 ailotted a plot. The Scheme therefore provided that only a person who does not own a house/residential plot/flat will be to apply ...... " In view of the aforesaid categorieal interpretation of the respondents' Scheme, this Court is of the view that only those applicants whose land have been taken away in entirety are entitled to an alternative house/plot/flat. The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for petitioners lliat petitioners have given undertaking that they would not seek allotment of alternative house/plot/flat in the event their remaining land is acquired, is of no relevance. Consequently, as the petitioners' entire land has not been taken away by acquisition, petitioners' are not entitled for an alternative house/plot/flat. With the aforesaid directions, present writ petitions are dismissed .. AUGUST 02, 2013 rn W.P. (C) 4848-484912013 Page4 of4

'"'· $- * IN THE IDGH COURT OF DELID AT NEW DELID 18. + W.P.(C) 4848/2013 SARDAR SINGH ... ' .. Petitioner Through Mr. J .V. Rana, Advocate versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR .. Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate ANb 19. + W.P.(C) 4849/2013 BHIMSINGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. J.V. Rana, Advocate versus LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT & ANR Through Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN ·