SHEILA KAPUR Vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby a petilion of the appellants, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of mandamus, was dismissed. The petition was based on the following allegations :- The appelanti owned land in village Mohamed Pur Manirka, Tehsil Delhi. The land was held for purposes of construction. The Union of India, respondent NP. 3 had acquired 1.100 acres of land, including the land of the appellants, for a Housing Scheme in 1957. It was the condition of the acquisition that respondent No. 3 was to allot alternative devloped plots of land to the persons, whose land had been acquired and which had been held by the owners for bona fide purposes of construction. This was conveyed by respondent No. 3, to the appellants, through his Secretary. The Government had also issued a brochure, which contained questions and answers. Answer to question No. 4 provided that developed plots of land would be leased out of the individuals whose land, held for bona fidt purposes of construction, had been acquired. The Goveinment had also made agreements with the Cooperative Societies under sections 41 and 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, according to which lands, acquired, were leased out to the societies. Clause XV (b) of the agreements provided that the societies shall offer its membership to persons whose lands had been acquired and if those persons fululled certain conditions to sub-let them residential plots, as the Chief Commissioner may in his absolute discretion, direct. Under this clause, the persons whose land had been acquired, were entitled to get plots. The Government had forwarded to the Government Servants Co-operative House Building Society a list of eligible allottees. Relying on the decision of the Government to allot alternative plots of land the husband of the appellant No. 1 had written to the authorities for the allotment of plots to the appellants. After some correspondence, the Deputy Housing Commissioner, by his letter dated the 30th November 1963, had informed the husband of appellant No. 1 that alternative plots could not be allotted to the appellants inasmuch as the concession of allotment of alternative plots was meant for only those persons whose lands had been acquired under the scheme. "Large-Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi whereas the land of the appellants was acquired under the Housing Scheme. It was further stated, in the letter, that the concession was extended to the persons whose lands had been acquired for the Housing Scheme provided componsation had not been offered to them before 1st January, 1961. The appellants had legal right to get alternative plots allotted to them. The refusal of the Government to allot them alternative plots on the ground that plots could only be allotted to the persons whose lands had been acquired under the scheme. "Large-Scale Acquisition, Development, and Disposal of Land in Delhi" and not to the appellants whose land had been acquired for the Housing Scheme, was not reasonable. The appellants were discriminated against, without any reasonable basis. The refusal of the Government to allot alternative plots to the appellants, thus, violated the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The matters were made worse by the Government by drawing a distinction between those owners to whom compensation tad been offered before 1st January, 1961 and the rest, though the lands of both the groups had been acquired for the same scheme, namely, the Housing Scheme, the date 1st January, 1961 was arbitrarily fixed. Some of the persons, e.g., Viswa Nath, who had received compensation before 1st January, 1961, were alloted alternative plots of land. Thus, the appellants were treated differently from persons, similarly situated as the appellants.

(2.) On the above allegations, the appellants prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to allot alternative plots to the appillants, in accordance with law.

(3.) On the above allegations, the appellants prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued, directing the respondents to allot alternative plots to the appillants, in accordance with law.