Delhi High Court
Madan Lal Sharma And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 1 April, 1987
Equivalent citations: 32(1987)DLT23
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by 14 different petitioners and it was inter alia prayed in the writ petition that the lands from which they were originally being evicted should be restored to them.
(2) It appears that the petitioners were living in a colony called Vinod Nagar. This colony is stated to have been in existence since 1965 when plots were purchased by the petitioners from a coloniser. Houses were then alleged to have been constructed on the plots so purchased. It is an admitted fact that this colony was (3) In December, 1975, the houses had been constructed by the petitioners were demolished. They we then accommodated in resettlement colonies and 25 yards of land was allotted to each of them. I am informed that petitioners 7&12 have two plots of 25 yards each.
(4) It is contended by the petitioners that there were number of other colonies which were unauthorised but which were regularised. It is further the case of the petitioner that a rehabilitation cell was set up by the Delhi Administration with a view to resettle the uprooted persons like the petitioners. According to the petitioners decision has been taken that alternative sites of at least 45 sq. meters of land should be allotted and it was also promised that as far as possible these persons will be given back the lands from which they were evicted. The relief which is claimed in the writ petition is that the petitioners should be restored to the land from which they had been evicted and their colony regularised. In the alternative, it is prayed that a new lay out plan may be prepared and allotments of land may be made in favor of the petitioners.
(5) The respondents in the reply filed to the petition have raised preliminary contentions. It has been stated that disputed questions of facts are involved in this case and furthermore the lands which were in occupation of the petitioner have in fact been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. According to the respondents, the petitioners are guilty of laches and on this ground alone the petition should be dismissed.
(6) During the pendency of this petition an application, being C.M. No. 4838/83, was filed. It appears that the respondents had taken a policy decision that alternative flats would be allotted to persons, like the petitioners, if they make an application within a stipulated time and are further able to prove to the satisfaction of the respondents that they had been evicted from the lands owned by them in the year 1975-76. In this application, CM4838/83, the prayer which was made was that the respondents should be directed to issue proforma for allotment of alternate flats to the petitioners. It was specifically mentioned in the application, filed on behalf of the petitioners, that they were praying for allotment of either new flats or for re-entry into the plots from which they had been forcibly evicted.
(7) On 25th May, 1984, it was ordered by this Court that the Delhi Administration should issue the necessary proforma and accept the payments if the petitioners are eligible under the rules for the said relief. Sh. Chandiok learned counsel for the respondents informs me, and this is not disputed by the Petitioners , that except for Petitioner Nos 7&12 alternative flates have been allotted to the other petitioners. As regards petitioner Nos. 7&12 are concerned proformas have not been issued to them because they have not been able to satisfy the respondents that the said two petitioners had been evicted along with the other petitioners, from Vinod Nagar.
(8) It appears to me that now there is no justifiable grievance of the petinoners except petitioners 7&12 and no relief, to my mind can be granted to them in this petition, (9) It is not in dispute that the land which comprised Vinod Nagar and from where the petitioners were first evicted, has been subject to acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 13th November, 1959. On 20th June, 1966 a Notification was issued under Section 6 of the said Act. Thereafter, two awards were announced and physical vacant possession of the land was taken over by the Government on 25th June, 1973 and 18th April, 1977.
(10) The effect of the proceedings having been taken under the Land Acquisition Act is that the land in question has vested in the Government free from all encumbrances. The land in question has now become the Government land. The question, therefore, of alloting this land back to the petitioners does not and cannot arise. Even otherwise the petitioners had bought this land at their own risk. When they purchased this land from a coloniser this land was already a subject matter of acquisition At least a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act had been issued Possibly most of the petitioners must have purchased the land even after the Notification under Section 6 had been issued. Be that as it may the fact remains that the land in question was not only under acquisition but the houses which were constructed by the petitioners were wholly unauthorised The respondents have nevertheless tried to rehabilitate the petitioners and have in fact allotted alternative plots of 25 sq. yards to each of the petitioners In addition thereto alternative flats have also been allotted to all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 7&12. In the aforesaid application Cm 4838/83 also, it has been stated that the petitioners were praying for allotment of either new flats or for re-entry into the flats. The prayer of the petitioners for allotment of flats having been accepted and implemented they have no further grievance in the matter.
(11) As regards petitioners 7&12 are concerned, according to the respondents, flats cannot be allotted to them because they have not applied within time and secondly, they had not produced the demolition slip or other proof which would have shown that the houses which they were occupying had been demolished. The scheme of the respondents was to rehabilitate persons who had been evicted in 1975.76 from Vinod Nagar. The scheme postulated allotment of alternative flats to genuine evictees. Possibly for this reason respondents were, rightly, insisting on proof of eviction and demolition of the property. One can understand the sense of urgency which must have prompted the respondents in asking applications to be made by the evictees within a stipulated time. But if a person did not make application but was in fact evicted after his house was demolished then, to my mind, it will be taking a hypertechnical view of the matter in holding that be is not entitled to an alternative flat. When the respondents have in their wisdom decided to rehabilitate persons who had been evicted then this decision must be taken to his logical extent and this benefit should be available to all evictees as long as alternative flats are available.
(12) In the present case I am informed that petitioner No. 12 was told that he had not applied for allotment of flat. The said petitioner contended that the application had been sent under Certificate of Posting but this proof was also not produced. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that the said petitioner was interested in the allotment of alternative flat. Furthermore, allotment has been made to the other petitioners after the filing of the present writ petition. Petitioner No. 12 was, therefore, similarly situate as other petitioners and even if it be assumed that he had not applied within time, in my opinion his application should have been considered on merits. The decision of the respondents, therefore, in non-suiting the petitioner on account of his not having applied within time is not correct or equitable.
(13) Mr. Chandiok informs me that the petitioner No. 12 had not produced the necessary evidence. According to the petitioner, who is present in person, the demolition slip or one plot belonging to him was not available. But the demolition slip of the plot belonging to his brother was available and had been filed with the Delhi Administration. Demolition slip is only one of the documents which would prove that the petitioner No. 12 was living at Vinod Nagar at a house from which he was evicted. It would, therefore, be in fitness of things and in the interest of justice if the respondents considers the case of petitioner No. 12 afresh, after the said petitioner files such other proof as may be available with him with regard to ownership of a plot of land in Vinod Nagar and his occupation thereof.
(14) There is also a submission raised by counsel for the petitioners that the respondents had agreed to allot the alternative plots at 50% of the costs. There is unfortunately no averment on the record on behalf of the petitioners that the price which is charged by the respondents is not in accordance with their policy. I am, therefore, unable to give any finding as to whether the price which has been charged by the respondents is more than which was agreed. It will be, however, independently of this petition be open to them to make such representation to the respondents as they may be advised in this behalf.
(15) The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. As the petitioners other than 7&12 have been allotted alternate flats no further relief is called for in their favor. As regards petitioners 7&12 are concerned they may within a period of four weeks from today file a fresh representation with the respondents for allotment of alternative flat to them and along with this representation they should produce proof as asked for by the respondents. If any such representation is filed, the same should be disposed of within three months of the receipt of the same. No further orders are called for. Parties to bear their own costs.