UNION OF INDIA Vs. GUNWANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Union of India, the appellant, questions the judgment of a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2017/1990 under Article 226 of the Constitution; by the impugned judgment a direction was issued to the appellants in the present case, to allot a 500 sq. meter plot to respondent Smt. Gunwanti Devi (hereinafter called "the writ petitioner").

(2.) The brief facts are that the writ petitioner was married to one Shri Harish Chand; they had four sons. Harish Chand belonged to the Joint Hindu Family (HUF) of one Lala Bengali Mal. That HUF was disrupted and partitioned through a registered deed dated 28.11.1941. It was alleged that prior to execution of the partition deed, Harish Chand had executed a release deed in favor of the writ petitioner and her children. Some time on 21.03.1950, the firm of M/s. Lachmandas Ram Chand applied to the Union of India for mutation of three plots, i.e. 1, 6 and 7 in favour of Smt. Gunwanti Devi the Petitioner, and her four sons. This was carried out through letter dated 13.06.1950. It was alleged in 1955 that another partition took place pursuant to which Plot 1 fell to the share of the writ petitioner and Plots 6 and 7 to her sons. Separate mutations pursuant to this partition were not sought for. These plots were part of land that was the subject matter of acquisition. In the meanwhile, inspection of the plots was carried out on 03.04.1970, 08.09.1971 and 20.01.1973 during which certain unauthorized constructions upon the plot and some misuse were found. Consequently, Show Cause Notices were issued which were returned undelivered. Later, it is alleged that Gunwanti Devi caused a reply to the Show Cause Notice to be issued which was found unsatisfactory. In these circumstances, the premises which were leasehold and in respect of which certain interest had been granted to the writ petitioner and her predecessor, was re-entered on 03.06.1974.

(3.) Further to acquisition proceedings, an Award, i.e. 20-A/74- 75(Supplementary) was announced on 29.03.1975. The writ petitioner in the meanwhile had sought for withdrawal of re-entry of the lease deed. The terms for withdrawal of re-entry were given to her 26.03.1979/20.04.1979 through a letter by the appellant. The representation was ultimately rejected on 21.10.1981. In these circumstances, after the award was made the petitioner and certain others situated in similar circumstances had apparently approached the Central Minister of Works and Housing for relief. They strongly relied upon a letter dated 22/23.10.1984, communicating that the extent of 500 sq. meters may be released in favour of the lessee i.e. the writ petitioner and certain others i.e. Bal Krishan Dang, S. Gurbachan Singh and Praveer Ukil.