Central Information Commission
Mrlajinder Singh vs Land And Building Department on 29 May, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
(Room No.315, BWing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)
Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)
Information Commissioner
CIC/SA/A/2015/000057
Lajinder Singh v. PIO, Land & Building Department
Important Dates and time taken:
RTI: 30.09.2014 Reply: 26.11.2014 Time: 57 days
FAA: 10.11.2014 FAO: 24.12.2014 Time: 44 days
SA: 08.01.2015 Hearing:22.05.2015 Decision: 29.05.2015
Result: Show cause with compensation and posted on 24.06.2015 at 2.30 for
compliance.
Parties Present:
1. Appellant is present. Public authority is represented by Shri B. S. Meena,
Supdt. and Harendra Kr. LDC.
FACTS:
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought information regarding acquisition of land in village Khirki. He wanted copy of the record for taking over of physical possession of land, acquired date wise, khasra no. with area and the name of those involved in this exercise with the designation etc. Having received no information, appellant filed first appeal. PIO stated that the information sought was not available. FAA disposed of the appeal stating that the reply provided by PIO on 13.11.2014 is factually correct. Being unsatisfied, appellant approached the Commission.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. The officer representing respondent authority submitted that information to question No. 1 was provided. On questions No. 2 to 9 he had nothing to be given. The appellant submitted that his land of 18 bhk was acquired by the government in 1978. Neither he nor his father got any compensation for the said land. On 30.09.2014 he applied for the information to the respondent office i.e. LAC, DDA and L&B departments, i.e. he filed his RTI application before three authorities. The Commission directs the PIOs of the above three departments to work together and provide the information to the appellant. The appellant alleged that his application was transferred to LAC and DDA on 2nd December, 2014 (after two month). The FAA under point No.5 directed the respondent authority to provide copies of the reference letter written by DDA to Land and Building department if traceable, be furnished by the SPIO within three weeks time. The appellant says in reference to point 6 of FAA, something was discussed but did not pertain to them.
4. It is duty of Delhi government to provide possible residential house at moderate price to those persons who have been deprived of possible residential houses, which they could have constructed on the land they have acquired.
5. Delhi High Court in Jai Singh Kanwar vs Union of India (Uoi) And Ors. decided on 22 April, 2008, [149 (2008) DLT 354] explained the background of the policy as follows:
6.1. ... The largescale acquisition of lands for the planned development of the capital city in Delhi commenced in 1957. In order to study the problem of devising measures to control land value and stabilizing the land prices in Delhi, the Government of India set up a Committee which submitted its report on 6th June 1959. The Chief Commissioner Delhi also submitted a note to the Government of India regarding acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. Thereafter the Government of India framed a scheme titled Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961. The detailed provisions of the Scheme were set out in the letter dated 2nd May 1961 of the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs addressed to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. In para 8 of the Scheme it was stated that as a general policy disposal of developed land should be made by auction and the premium should be determined by the highest bid except in the following cases where land may be allotted at predetermined rates, viz., the cost of acquisition and development plus additional charges. The first category of the excepted category which had to pay for the alternative plots at predetermined rates were:
(i) to individuals whose land has been acquired as a result of the Chief Commissioner's notification dated the 7th March, 1957 the 3rd September, 1957, the 13th November, 1959 and the 10th November, 1960 or other subsequent notifications provided that this concessions will not be available in the case of individuals affected by the Notification dated the 7 th March, 1957 and the September 1957 if the acquisition proceedings have been completed and payment made or deposited in court by the 1st January, 1961.
(a) If a residential plot is to be allotted, the size of such plot subject to the ceilings prescribed may be determined by the Chief Commissioner, taking into consideration the area and the value of the land acquired from the individual and the location and value of the plot to be allotted, and
(b) If an industrial plot is to be allotted, its size may be determined with reference to the requirement of the industry to be set up, provided that the setting up of industry is in accordance with the matter plan and the industrialists concerned has the capacity to establish and run such industry and provided further that the extent of land allotted at predetermined rates should not exceed the area acquired from the industrialist concerned. In making such allotment for industries the Chief Commissioner will be advised by an Advisory Committee to be nominated by him.
6.2. In Clause 10 further conditions were imposed when alternative plots were allotted to individuals. These were first, that the person being allotted the alternative plot should not own any other residential plot in Delhi, secondly, that a building should be constructed thereon within two years of the allotment and thirdly that the plot cannot be transferred for a period of ten years from the date of allotment except with the permission of the Chief Commissioner. 6.3. Thus it is seen that the scheme for allotment of alternative plots, although in force from 2nd May 1961, covered even those acquisitions that were made prior to that date and in particular the largescale acquisitions of 1957, 1959 and 1960. The scheme of allotment of alternative plots acquired a statutory character under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DD Act) read with the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (Nazul Rules). The lands acquired by the Central Government and placed at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), Respondent No. 3 herein, for development fell under the category of Nazul lands within the meaning of Section 21 of the DD Act. The elements of the 1961 Scheme were engrafted into the Nazul Rules. The categories mentioned in Clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme were expanded under Rule 4 of the Nazul Rules.
6.4. Subsequently in 1986 the Scheme underwent changes. The task of identifying plots for allotment was entrusted to the DDA although the clearance of an application for an alternative plot was the task of the Land and Buildings Department (LandB) of the Delhi Administration (subsequently the Government of the NCT of Delhi), Respondent No. 4 herein. 6.5. These changes to the policy are relevant for the present case and require to be discussed in some detail. On 3rd April, 1986 an office order was issued by the L and B Department of the Delhi Administration which reads as under:
Delhi Administration: Delhi Land And Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi.
No. F. 37(39)/1/82/LandB/Alt Dated the 3rd April 86
OFFICE ORDER
In supersession of all previous orders issued on the subject the Administrator, Delhi is pleased to order that following norms should be followed in respect of allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi under the Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi of the Govt. of India contained in their letter dated 2.5.1961.
1. In order to make the applicant eligible for allotment of alternative plot, the minimum land acquired for Planned Development of Delhi will be one bigha instead of 150 Sq. Yds.
2. In case the applicant has purchased the requisite land of 1 bigha he should have purchased the land 5 years earlier than the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in order to make him eligible for allotment of alternative plot.
3. Condition No. 2 will, however, not be applicable in respect of ancestral cases.
4. Maximum size of the plot will be restricted to 250 Sq. Yds. Where land acquired is more than 10 bighas.
Cases where land acquired is more than 5 bighas but up to 10 bighas plot size of 150 Sq. Yds will be recommended and in respect of the cases where the land acquired ranges between 1 bigha to 5 bighas the size of the plot to be recommended will be restricted to 80 Sq. Yds.
5. The plots will be allotted by DDA on predetermined rates fixed by the Competent Authority from timeto time. It is also clarified that these orders shall also apply to all pending applicants.
Sd/ (P. Bhatnagar) Secretary (Land and Building) A copy of this order was marked to the DDA for necessary action because by this time the procedure that was followed was that the L and B Department would first screen the applications for their eligibility and entitlement and make a recommendation to the DDA for allotment of the alternative plot.
6.6. This was followed by an order dated 15th September 1986 which read as under:
Delhi Administration: Delhi Land And Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi.
No. F. 37(30)/1/82LandB/Alt 8754 Dated: 15th Sep, 86
OFFICE ORDER
In partial modification of office order No. F.37(39)1/82LandB/Alt dated 8.4.1986 regarding the eligibility and entitlement for recommencing the cases to DDA for the allotment of alternative plots in lieu of the acquired land for Planned Development of Delhi. It has now been decided that all applications covering the Awards announced before 3.4.1986. received/to be received in this regard, will be considered according to the norms being followed till the issue of the above mentioned office order dated 3.4.1986. However, the provisions of the Office Order dated 3.4.1986 will apply in respect of all applications received relating to the Awards announced on and after 3.4.1986.
All applications considered and rejected in pursuance of Office Order dated 3.4.1986 will, therefore, now be reopened and considered suomoto and such individual applicants informed accordingly.
Apart from the above, all such eligible applicants whose cases were recommended to DDA regarding the size of plots in accordance with the above mentioned office order, will also be revised suo moto.
Sd/ (N. Diwakar) Joint Secretary :Land and Bldg.) 6.7. A further modification was brought about by an order dated 30 th January, 1987 where for the first time it was stated that even if possession of the entire land was not taken, the recommendation for allotment of alternative plots could be made but it would have to be considered whether not less than 80% of the total land for which the award has been announced should be taken possession of. The said order reads as under:
Delhi Administration: Delhi Land and Building Department Vikas Bhawan: New Delhi.
NO. F. 37(39) 82LandB/3703 Dated: the 30/1/1987.
Office Order
It has been decided that henceforth, the recommendation for the allotment of alternative plots may be made even where the possession of the entire land acquired has not been taken by the concerned departments of the Government/agencies. But the Zonal Officers while scrutinizing such cases will take into consideration the possession of land to the extent of 80% and not lesser than 80% of total land for which award has been announced.
It has also been decided that the Harijans and other landless persons of the villages who were allotted agricultural land under 20 point programme of the Government may also be considered for the allotment of alternative plots even if they have been declared Bhumidar/owner of the land after notification Under Section 4 of the L.A. Act. While examining such cases the Zonal Officer concerned may examine all relevant factors including the orders passed by SubDivisional Magistrate/Revenue Asstt. By which Bhumidari rights were conferred upon the applicants Under Section 74 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act.
In both these cases mentioned above, other conditions of recommendations for the allotment of alternative plot, pertaining to determination of eligibility of size etc. will remain the same.
Sd/ (G.S. Chaturvedi) Under Secretary (Alt. Allotment) 6.8. The DDA on its part issued a printed version of the scheme of allotment of alternative plots where it clearly indicated the eligibility criteria and the norms for the sizes of plots, the procedure to be followed etc. Significantly a reference was made to the Scheme contained in the letter of the Government of India dated 2nd May, 1961. It was stated that the plots are allotted by the DDA on the recommendation of this Department as per policy laid down in this regard by Government of Delhi. Relevant to this case it was stated that the persons eligible to apply, in the event that the land acquired was ancestral, were those who are recorded owner prior to the issue of the Notification under Section 4 LA Act. Further, such persons must have received the compensation as rightful owners. And possession of the acquired land should have been taken by the Govt. The applicants should not own a house or residential plot in their own name or name of the near and dependent relations. Lastly for awards announced prior to 3.4.1986 the land acquired is not less than 150 sq. yards and for awards announced post 3.4.1986 the land must not be less than 1 bigha. The norms set out for the size of plots for awards announced before 3.4.1986 was where the land acquired was above 1 bigha and up to 10 bighas the plot size would be 250 sq. yards. Under the subheading procedure followed by the Department, there were two columns for documents to be submitted. The first was in case of applicant being recorded owner at the time of Notification under Section 4 LA Act. The other column was if the applicant is not the recorded owner is one of the legal heirs of the deceased recorded owner. In the latter case in addition to the documents required to be submitted by the applicants belonging to the first category, certain other documents like death certificate, heirship certificate, relinquishment deed of other legal heirs and indemnity bond have to be submitted.
6.9. The Respondents have placed on record copies of the public notice issued by the Delhi Administration in 1989 informing the public that all persons in whose case acquisition proceedings have been finalized under the scheme of Large Scale acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi for planned Development of Delhi between the period of 16th November 1963 and 31st December 1988, (both dates inclusive) may apply in the prescribed form along with all requisite enclosures for recommendation of the allotment of an alternative plot of land in lieu of acquired land in accordance with the policy laid down in his behalf by Delhi Administration from time to time so that their application reaches the officer of the Secretary (L and B) D Block, Vikas Bhawan, I.P. Estate, New Delhi, latest by 30.4.1989.
Therefore it is clear that even as on 30th April, 1989 the Delhi Administration was prepared to consider applications for the allotment of alternative plot to persons whose lands have been acquired in a 25 year period between 1963 and 1988 for the planned development of Delhi. 6.10. A collective reading of the aforementioned policy changes could be summarized as under:
(i) Since 2nd May, 1961 there was a policy for allotment of alternative plots to those whose lands were acquired under the Scheme of large scale acquisition for the planned development of Delhi.
(ii) Subject to �ulfillment of the specified criteria the acquired land could be disposed of other than by way of public auction, by allotment at predetermined rates to certain categories of persons which included individuals. There were conditions which included nontransferability for a period of ten years and completion of construction on the plot within two years from the date of allotment.
(iii) The said policy continued notwithstanding the enactment of DD Act. Some of the essential features of the policy were engrafted into the Nazul Rules. The policy therefore took on a statutory character.
(iv) Applications were invited for allotment of alternative plots even as late as April 1989.
Persons whose lands had been acquired during a 25year period between 1963 and 1988 could apply up to 30th April, 1989 for allotment of alternative plots.
(v) The changes brought about by the office order dated 3rd April, 1986 was that there was a minimum extent of land which had to be acquired (1 bigha) i.e. 1000 sq.yds approx. before such person could be entitled to alternative plots. As regards the sizes of plot to be allotted it would be 250 sq. yards where land acquired was more than 10 bighas 150 sq. yards when it was between 5 and 10 bighas and 80 sq. yards when it was between 1 and 5 bighas. However as clarified by the subsequent office order dated 15th September 1986 this changed condition applied only to those awards announced on and after 3rd April 1986.
(vi) The Office Order dated 30th January 1987 stipulated that allotment of alternative plots may be made even where the possession of the entire land acquired has not been taken. However while scrutinizing such cases the authorities had to take into consideration whether possession of at least 80% for total land of which award has been announced has been taken. The said Office Order was prospective.
(vii) The procedure announced by the DDA incorporating the features of the policy of the government for allotment of alternative plots, setting out the eligibility criteria and procedure made it explicit that an application could be made by even a legal heir of the person who was the recorded owner of the land at the time of acquisition.
Full Bench judgments of Delhi High Court 7.1. The purport of the 1961 Scheme was explained in some of the judgments of Delhi High Court which will be discussed presently. In Shiv Devi Virlley v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, a Full Bench of this Court was considering the question as to who would be eligible to be allotted an alternative plot: a person who was the recorded owner of the acquired land at the time of the notification under Section 4 LA Act (as held by some benches of this Court) or a person who was the recorded owner at the time of acquisition. The Full Bench explained that the provisions of the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act 1972 did not apply to these allotments or their transfers since the Scheme was brought into force much earlier in 1961. After analyzing the provisions of the LA Act and concluding that the government takes over the land only after an award is passed and therefore there was no restriction on the transfer of the land till then, the Full Bench in para 18 (AIR p.50) held:
18. It is quite clear that anyone whose land has been acquired as a result of the Notifications mentioned in Clause 8 of the Scheme is entitled to apply. By anyone is meant: the owner of the land at the time of acquisition and not the owner at the time of the issue of the Notification under Section 4. In fact, there is no impediment in law at all either today or earlier regarding transfers, after the Notification has been issued under Section 4. There is an impediment after the acquisition notice is issued under Section 6, but that too applies after 1972. We have not yet come across a case in which the acquisitions of planned development were made after 1972. We would not like to comment upon them.
7.2. Giving its imprimatur to the policy the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley explained the rationale for the policy was to see that the population of Delhi is properly housed and has the means for acquiring residential houses and further that if a person has bought a residential plot privately and the State chooses to acquire that land at a very meager price, then surely it is the duty of the State to give an alternative plot at a moderate price to those persons who have been deprived of possible residential houses, which they could have constructed on the land they have acquired.
7.3. The next important decision interpreting the clauses of the policy is of the Full Bench in Ramanand v. Union of India (supra). The questions considered by the Full Bench here were whether: (a) a person whose lands had been acquired under the Scheme for largescale acquisition of land for the planned development of Delhi had a vested right to the allotment of an alternative plot in terms of the 1961 Scheme (b) an allottee of an alternative plot can be asked to pay the predetermined rates prevalent at the time of the allotment of the plot or, as contended by the allottees, those prevalent on the date of their making an application. The Court discussed the provisions of the DD Act and the Nazul Rules. The Court concluded that in respect of such lands the provisions earlier made in the 1961 Scheme stand impliedly repealed by the more comprehensive and detailed provisions made later, on the same subject and in the same field, by the Nazul Rules in 1981. The Full Bench found that the categories mentioned in Clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme to whom alternative plots could be allotted had been expanded in Rule 4 of the Nazul Rules. It held (para 24, AIR p.41) that: The principle expressed in the form of exception in Clause 8 of the 1961 Scheme, which has already been discussed above, is embodied into the Nazul Rules.
7.4. The conclusions arrived at by the Full Bench in Ramanand were:
28. As a result of the above discussions, we find that an individual whose land has been acquired for planned development of Delhi, has no absolute right to allotment, but, he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes; and that the DDA may allot Nazul land to such an individual, in conformity with the plans and subject to other provisions of the Nazul Rules.
34. We, therefore, proceed to answer the second question, and hold that the rates of premium chargeable from different categories of persons, including an individual whose land has been acquired, shall be the predetermined rates in force at the time when the offer is made to the concerned person for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or zone, under Rule 6 of Nazul Rules.
7.5. To recapitulate, the Full Bench in Shiv Devi Virlley decided that even those who had purchased the lands after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 LA Act could apply for allotment of an alternative plot as long as they were the recorded owners at the time of acquisition. In Ramanand the Full Bench pointed out that the 1961 Scheme was now overridden by the Nazul Rules and thus was of a statutory character. The policy of making allotments of alternative plots in lieu of acquired land would be governed by those Rules. A person whose lands had been acquired for the planned development of Delhi had no absolute right to allotment, but he is eligible to be considered for allotment of an alternative plot for residential purposes in accordance with the Nazul Rules. Such person, if allotted an alternative plot would have to pay the predetermined rates in force at the time when the offer is made to the concerned person for allotment of a specific plot of land in a particular area or zone under Rule 6 of the Nazul Rules.
6. The Commission finds serious irresponsibility on the part of the respondent authority.
The Commission had seen several RTI applications from the poor land owners whose lands were acquired around 197778 like Mr. Lajinder Singh in this case. Three departments DDA, LAC and L&B are playing ping pong with the applicants. These three offices conveniently said the question does not pertain to them, they either transferred it to other department and even did not do nothing. The Commission notices that these three public authorities are harassing the land owners. It is pathetic to note that Mr. Lajinder Singh, aged 77 years is fighting for his land since 1978, his father died without receiving compensation and he is fighting as second generation against the officer represented from lethargic govt to get compensation. The whole country is suffering problem of land acquisition, and Mr. Lajinder Singh is an example of victim of lethargic attitude of government. The Commission also finds these three departments highly nonresponsive. They should have human concern for these victims. They did not coordinate with each other and PIOs were not consulting with each other. They have simply passed on the neck to other public authorities.
7. The Commission directs SPIO Mr. Sunder Bora to coordinate with LAC and DDA where Mr. Lajinder Singh filed several RTI applications, and also to make comprehensive note on the problem raised by Mr. Lajinder Singh regarding compensation for his land. The Commission also directs the PIO to prepare a comprehensive report so that all his RTI applications before these three departments are totally answered with truthful details within one month and file such report before this Commission, marked copy to the applicant by 23rd June, 2015.
8. The Commission directs Mr. Surender Bora to show cause why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him for violation of RTI Act in dealing with RTI application of Mr. Lajinder Singh within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs Mr. Surender Bora to show cause why disciplinary action could not be advised against him for violation of RTI Act. He is also directed to explain why compensation should not be given to Mr. Lajinder Singh for the harassment rendered to him because of lethargy of respondent authority, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. The case is posted for compliance and penalty proceedings on 24.06.2015 at 2.30 hours Sd/ (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Babu Lal) Deputy Registrar Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO under RTI, Land & Building Department (Land Acquisition Branch), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi110002.
2. Shri Lajinder Singh, C66, Malviya nagar, New Delhi110017.