GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JAGDISH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide impugned judgment dated 23.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge in writ petition filed by the respondent herein, the petition has been allowed setting aside the decision of the Committee on allotment of alternative plots dated 31.8.1999 rejecting the respondent's claim for an alternative plot with direction to consider the case afresh in the light of the observations made by the learned Single Judge. That order is in challenge in the present intra-Court appeal. The factual matrix leading to the present appeal is as under: The Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') had framed a scheme for allotment of alternative plots for those persons whose lands were acquired. This scheme is dated 02.5.1961 (hereinafter referred to as '1961 Scheme'). The 1961 Scheme inter alia contemplated that land may be allotted at pre-determined rates, viz., at the cost of acquisition and development plus the additional charges mentioned in the scheme, to individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner's notifications dated 17.7.1959, 03.9.1957, 13.11.1959 and 10.11.1960 or other such notifications with a view to rehabilitate such individuals. Pursuant to the 1961 Scheme, land owners whose land was acquired, applied for allotment of alternative plots in respect of advertisements inviting applications and after the necessary requirements as stipulated in the 1961 Scheme were complied with, plots were allotted to the persons who were the recorded owners prior to the issue of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Vide an Office Order dated 03.4.1986, the 1961 Scheme was further amended.

(2.) Under the Scheme, DDA has been considering the cases of the individuals as and when such persons, whose lands have been acquired, have been making application for allotment of alternative plot on the acquisition of their lands. For this purpose, a committee called "Committee on Allotment of Alternative Plots" ('the Committee' in short) was constituted by the DDA. Land of the respondent herein was acquired twice under the provisions of the Act. First time this land was acquired vide award passed in the year 1967. The respondent had made a request for alternative plot which was considered favourable in terms of the prevalent policy. As per the DDA on the recommendation of Land & Building Department ("L & B Department" for brevity) contained in letter dated 30.11.1967, the respondent was even offered an alternative plot admeasuring 400 squire yards in East of Kailash and was asked to deposit the earnest money of '4,500/-, but he did not come forward and deposited the said earnest money and therefore, this offer lapsed and stood withdrawn by the DDA on 07.5.1969. The respondent herein claims that he never received such an intimation of alternate plot and therefore, could not deposit the said money. He did not come to know about the said withdrawal.

(3.) Be as it may, another set of land of the respondent in Village Sahibabad was again acquired on 31.3.1977 vide award No.29/76-77. He applied for another alternative plot on 06.2.1984. This application was considered, but was rejected by the Committee in its meeting held on 31.8.1999 on the ground that the respondent was earlier recommended an alternative plot on 30.4.1987 and as per the Scheme, a person could be allotted land only once in his life time. The respondent filed writ petition challenging this rejection. Learned Single Judge has set aside the aforesaid decision on the ground that in terms of Policy of L & B Department, one of the conditions making a person ineligible is where he has already been allotted a plot of land or recommended earlier for allotment of an alternative plot of land. Once a person is allotted an alternative plot in lieu of one set of lands acquired from him, there can be no further allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the lands subsequently acquired under a separate award. Additional reason is given that the respondent, in fact, did not get an alternative plot purportedly at the first time in 1967 and therefore, there is no bar to his being allotted an alternative plot.