OM PRAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court claim to be the grandsons of Shri Baldev and residents of village Todapur, New Delhi. In the year 1911, when Government of India decided to shift its capital from Kolkata to New Delhi, it was decided not to acquire the land comprised in certain villages, provided the occupants of the said land paid Chullah Tax to the Government. According to the petitioners, land in village Todapur was one such land and the Government, while levying Chullah Tax on the residents of the said village, decided not to acquire its land.

(2.) THE issue of grant of leasehold rights to the residents of certain villages, including Todapur had been engaging the attention of the Government of India. Vide OM dated 18.07.1983, it was decided to grant perpetual lease on rights of the land under occupation of the residents of these villages subject to the following conditions:-

(3.) IN its counter-affidavit, the respondent-DDA has stated that though the land comprised in certain villages, including Todapur was acquired, it was not utilized though the same remained under acquisition and, therefore, the said land continued to be occupied by the villagers with the condition that they would pay prescribed Chullah Tax to the Government. DDA has also admitted that vide OM dated 18.07.1983, the Government had decided to grant leasehold rights to the residents of certain villages, including village Todapur, who were residing there and were paying Chullah Tax, but, has claimed that the said scheme has not been implemented, except in village Nangli Rajapur. It is further stated in the counter- affidavit of DDA that they had published notice on 31.07.2005, inviting applications from the residents of these villages, along with site plan of their houses and documentary proof of their claim. After receipt of the applications, the Competent Authority constituted a Committee which scrutinized all the applications. Out of the 188 persons, who applied for leasehold rights, no one was found eligible. It is further stated in the reply that the petitioners did not respond to the advertisement issued by DDA.