Disposed

Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

Delhi HC5 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/8952/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside a rejection of an allotment application requesting the petitioners (legal heirs) to furnish specific documents and proof of legal succession within two weeks, directing the respondent to reconsider eligibility within six weeks thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the letter dated 28.08.2014; granted two weeks to submit documents; directed respondent to consider eligibility within six weeks thereafter.

Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs Govt. of NCT Delhi — Delhi HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8952/2014

¶4

VIJAY KUMAR AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr.Deepak R.Dahiya, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

GOVT. OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Siddharth Panda, Adv. for L&B Deptt.)

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 05.12.2016

¶8

The challenge in this writ petition is to the communication dated 28^th August, 2014 whereby the request of Sh. Thakur Dutt (who according to the petitioners, has since expired) for allotment of alternate plot was rejected.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioners (who represents themselves as the legal heirs of Late Shri Thakur Dutt) that on 15^th November, 1996 a notification under sections 4 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for acquisition of land measuring 940 Bigha 06 Biswa in Village Holambi Kalan. It is averred that Late Shri Thakur Dutt was paid an amount of Rs.25,87,557/- on 18^th August, 1998. On 26^th August, 1998, Late Shri Thakur Dutt applied for allotment of alternate plot as per the relevant scheme for those persons whose land has been acquired. It is contended that on 26^th March, 2013, a letter was

¶10

addressed to Late Shri Thakur Dutt informing deficiencies in the application. A further letter was issued on 21^st May, 2013 requiring him to submit certain documents by 1^st June, 2013.

¶11

It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner no.1 on 31^st May, 2013 visited the Land and Building Department and submitted the required documents as demanded by the respondent. A further letter was received on 22^nd November, 2013 requiring Late Shri Thakur Dutt to submit payment certificate and proper indemnity bond in favour of President of India latest by 9^th December, 2013. A stand has been taken that required documents were submitted. On 26^th May, 2014, another letter was issued by the respondent to Late Shri Thakur Dutt calling upon him to submit an affidavit of not owning immovable property and the revenue record for the year prior to the notification of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act latest by 26^th May, 2014. It is contended that on 21^st August, 2014, the petitioner no.1 who had been pursuing with the Tehsildar of his village somehow managed to get the revenue record and submitted the same to the Land and Building Department. He sought some time to file the affidavit as per letter dated 26^th May, 2014.

¶12

It is noted from the impugned letter that the application for allotment of alternate plot was placed before the Recommendation Committee meeting held on 9^th July, 2014 and it was observed that the applicant vide letter dated 26^th May, 2014 was asked to submit the requisite documents but no reply was received. Due to non submission of the requisite documents, the eligibility of the applicant

¶13

for allotment of alternate plot could not be ascertained and the same was rejected. The respondent filed reply and the stand is primarily summed up in para A and B at page 34, the same are reproduced as under:

¶14

“ A. As per the record maintain in the department and the report of Land Acquisition Collector, the land bearing khasra no.43/8 (4-12), 9(1-14), 12(4-15), 19(4-14), 22(4-06), 68/2(307),9(3-0), 12(5-02), 19(4-16), 20(1-15) and 22(0-12) total 3813 with ¼ share of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi of Sh.Thakur Dutt s/o Sh. Bishamber, which was acquired vide award no.22/97-98 dated 30/3/1998 for which notification was issued on 15/11/96 and compensation was paid to Sh.Thakur Dutt on 24/04/1998. The application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted by Sh.Thakur Dutt on 26/08/1998.

¶15

B. The case was considered by the committee on 09/07/2014 and it was observed that the applicant was asked to submit the requisite documents vide letter no.2863 dated 26.05.2014 but no reply has been received. Due to nonsubmission of the requisite documents, the eligibility of the applicant for allotment of the alternative plot cannot be ascertained, hence the case is rejected. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant was supposed to submit the documents by 26.06.2014. It is incorrect to say that no time was allowed to the applicant for filing of the documents. Even for the sake of argument, it is accepted that no time was allowed, the applicant has not stated anything about this in its letter dated 21.08.2014. This clearly shows that the applicant was aware of the date and this ground has been taken for the first time in this petition. The petitioner could have clarified from the department had there been any doubt with regard to submission of the documents. However, the fact remains that the application was rejected on 09/07/2014 after giving more than two months time. ”

¶16

During the course of submissions, it was contended by the

¶17

learned counsel for the petitioners that through letter dated 26^th May, 2014, the respondents have sought for two documents but no time was given to Late Shri Thakur Dutt to submit the same. As it was clear that the date for submitting the documents was also mentioned as 26^th May, 2014. In any case, it is also his submission that the documents as sought for i.e. affidavit in prescribed format for not owning the immovable property in Urban area of Delhi including Group Housing Society and revenue record for the year prior to issue of notification under section 4 have already been submitted by Late Shri Thakur Dutt. He states, in any case vide letter dated 21^st August, 2014, the revenue record was submitted by the petitioner no.1. In so far as the affidavit was concerned, he has sought some time to submit the same. He also states the affidavit and documents evidencing the petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Shri Thakur Dutt, shall be submitted within 2 weeks. I may note here, that in Para 15 of the writ petition the following has been stated: -

¶18

“That in the meanwhile both the parents of the Petitioner expired within a time span of 5 days and as a result the petitioner was busy in performing the rituals and ceremonies of his deceased parents. On the receipt of the above stated letter the Petitioner approached the Respondent department seeking clarification of the same. However, he could not get any reasonable explanation as to why not even a single day’s time was given so that the documents could be deposited. The Petitioner was orally given assurance that his case is being looked into and that he should deposit the requisite documents at the earliest. On the assurance given by the Respondent department, the petitioner collected the requisite

¶19

document’s and deposited the same with the Respondent department vide covering letter dated 21.08.2014. Vide the same letter the petitioner also informed the Respondent department that his mother and father had expired and he needed some more time to submit the documents along with the death certificate of his mother and father. The said letter dated 21.08.2014 is annexed as Annexure I to the present writ petition.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would concede that the application for allotment of alternate plot was made by Late Sh. Thakur Dutt. If the petitioners satisfies the authorities, they are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Thakur Dutt, the eligibility for allotment of alternate plot to the petitioners shall be considered. In this regard, he has also drawn my attention to page 16 of the documents, which is a letter dated 26^th March, 2013, the points at serial Nos.5 and 6 relate to the submission of death certificate of recorded owner. The said statement is taken on record.

¶21

On merits, he justifies the impugned letter. It is his submission that as the decision was already taken by the Committee on 9^th July, 2014, even though letter was sent on 21^st August, 2014, the decision taken could not have been reversed.

¶22

Noting the aforesaid submissions made, as has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners shall furnish the affidavit and documents evidencing that they are the legal heirs of Late Sh. Thakur Dutt within two weeks, this Court is of the view, the submission made is reasonable and the fact no reasonable time was

¶23

granted by the respondents to Late Sh. Thakur Dutt to furnish the documents as the letter dated 26^th May, 2014 itself depicts that the documents to be furnished on the same date i.e. 26^th May, 2014, which was not possible and the stand of the respondents that as the decision was already taken on 9^th July, 2014 which could not be reversed as unjustifiable and further the request of the petitioner no.1 on 21^st August, 2014 for grant of some time, also as reasonable, as a last and final opportunity of two weeks time from the date of receipt of this order be granted to the petitioners to furnish all the documents as sought for in the letter dated 26^th May, 2014 and also documents evidencing they are the legal heirs of Late Shri Thakur Dutt, the respondents on receipt thereof shall consider the case of the petitioners determining eligibility for allotment of alternate plot within six weeks thereafter.

¶24

The letter dated 28^th August, 2014 is set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶26

DECEMBER 05, 2016 RN

Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar and Ors. v. Govt. of NCT Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Karan and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner Sadar Paharganj Zone and Ors.

Prabhat Agri Biotech Ltd. & Anr. Vs Registrar of Plants Varieties & Ors.

Sheetal Jagga Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Others

Shakunti Devi Vs Union of India & Ors.

Karamyogi Trading Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Income Tax Officer Ward, 14 (2), New Delhi

New Track Dresses Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Income Tax Officer Ward, 18 (2), New Delhi

Pawan Hans Pilot Guild Vs M/S Pawan Hans Ltd.

Vir Pal Singh Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Ors.

Aditi Vs Delhi Pharmaceutical Sciences & Research University & Anr.

Laxmi Devi Vs Nodal Officer / Addl. District Magistrate & Ors.

Shree Sai Aeronautics Trust (Regd) Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sujata Malhotra Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.

Priyanka Prasad and Ors. Vs University of Delhi and Ors.

Shree Jagdish Shanti Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training