Dismissed

Dalit Pichhara Varg Alpsan Kayak Vikas Samiti v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Aug 2019W.P.(C)/10741/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to include village Holambi Kalan in a list of villages for land allotment and to direct provision of specific facilities. The court found the list to be a subjective policy decision not open to interference unless arbitrary. It noted existing facilities in the area and rejected the petitioner's claim of lack thereof.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the writ petition was dismissed with no directions to the respondents.

Dalit Pichhara Varg Alpsan Kayak Vikas Samiti Vs Govt of NCT… — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2019)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:21.10.2024 16:56:28 Certify that the digital and physical file have W. p. (0 10741/201'6 been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

Sabha land of village: Holambi Kalan, Delhi for providing shmashan ghat/kabristan (cremenation place), maternity hospital, play ground,- library and Panchayat Ghar for Valmiki Community etc; Hi) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper;"

¶3

Having heard the counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner is seeking for the addition of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi in the list of 95 villages for which J.U a policy decision has been taken by the respondents dated 25 October, 2015 in exercise of powers under Section 35 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 to be read with Rule 176 of Delhi Punchayat Raj Rules, 1954 as amended by Delhi Panchayat (Amendment) Rules, 2006. This notification has been issued by the Government of NCT of Delhi which is at Annexure P-10 to the memo of this writ petition. For. the ready reference this notification reads as under:

¶4

¶5

"In exercise of the powers- ii/s .35wf'Delhi Panchayat Raj Act, 1954 and Rule 176 of the Delhi. Ppnehayat Raj Rules, 1954 as amended by Delhi PanchayafKaj ffl Rules, 2006, Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi is pleased to order that all the gaon Sabha lands in the following revenue villages shall stand allotted/transferred to the Revenue Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi en-block for use in future for public purposes;

¶6

SI.No.	NameofRevenueVillage	NameofDistrict
1.	NebSarai	South
2.	Bakkamala	West
3.	Baprola.	West
4.	Hastsal	West
5.	KamruddinNagar	West
^ 6.	KiraniSulemanNagar	West
07 ■7.	Mundka - '	West
8.	NangloiJat	West

W.P.(C) 10741/2016

Page 2 of 7

9.	RqjpurKhurd	West
10.	TilangapurKotla	West
11.	AsalapurKhawad	West
12.	NawadaMqjra	West
13.	Nilothi	West
14.	Neelwal	West
15.	Masoodabad	South-West
16.	Nangl iSakrawat	South-West
17.	ShqfipurRanhola	South-West
18.	TajpiirKhurd	South-West
19.	Dhoolsiras	South-West
20.	GoelaKhurd	South-West
21.	Kah'ola	South-West
22.	QutahPur	South-West
23.	Amberhai	South-West
24.	DaryapurKhurd	South-West
25.	Daulatpurq	South-West
26.	DichaonKalan	South-WestV
27.	Dinarpur	South-West
28.	Hasanpur	SouthrWest
29.	Haibatpur	South-West
30:	JafarpurKalan	South-West
31.	Jaffarpur(Hirakunda)	South-West
32.	Jhalijhuli ;' \L■	■) ■South-West
33.	KharkariJatmal ' ''•	South-West
34.	KharkhariNahar	South-West
35.	KharkhariRond	South-West
.36.	Khaira	South-West
37.	KheraDabar	South-West
38.	MalikpurzerNqj'qfagarh	South-West
39.	Najqfgarh	South-West
40.	PindawalaKalan	South-West
41.	Paprawat	South-West
42.	PindawalaKhurd	South-West
43. -	Qazipur	South-West
44.	RewlaKhanpur	South-West
45.	Ro.shanpura	South-West
46.	Sarangpur	South-West
47.	Chhawla	South-West

¶12

Page 3 of 7

¶13

W.P.(C) 10741/2016

¶14

48.	ShamspurKhalsa	South-West
49.	Surehera	South-West
50.	ShepurDairy	South-West
5.1.	Ujwa	South-West
52.	SalempurMqjraBurari	Central
53.	Mukandpur	Central
54.	Burari	Central
.55.I	Jharodamajra	Central
56.	KamalpurMajra	Central
57.	SalahpurMqjra	NorthWest
58.	Budhanpur	NorthWest
59.	Jatkhor	NorthWest
60.	Chandpur	NorthWest
61.	Ladpur	NorthWest
62.	' Kanjhawala	NorthWest
63.	Karala	NorthWest
64.	MadanpurDabas	NorthWest
65.	MohammadpurMdjri <br>In:	NorthWest
66.	RaniKhera , ' -	NorthWest
67.	Rasulpur	NorthWest
68.	Ghewra	NorthWest
69.	Sawda	NorthWest
• 70.	BazidpurThah''an	North
71.	Nany;alThdkran I ,;."	^-North
72.	Bawana	North
73.	PoothKhurd	North
74.	SultanpurDabas	,North
75.	DaryapurKalan	North
76.	KheraKhurd	North
77.	AkbarpurMajra	North
78.	Bhalswa Dairy/Jahqngir Puri	North
79.	Ibrahimpur	North
80.	Jindpur	North
81.	Kadipur	North
82.	Khampur	North
83.	MohaddadpurRamzanpur	North
84.	Mukhmelpur	North
85.	Nanglipuna,	North

¶15

W.P.(C) I074I/20I6

¶16

Page 4 of 7

¶17

86.	Tiggipur	North
87.	Katewara	North
88.	FatehpurJat	North
89.	Samaypur	North
90.	Libaspur	North
91.	Seeraspur	North
92.	Bijapur	North
93.	Alipur	North
94.	TikriKhurd	North
95.	GadiKhasro	North"

¶18

Thus, in the aforesaid list of 95 villages, the village Holambi Kalan is not included and therefore it is prayed by the petitioner that while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directions to be issued to include the village Holambi, Kalan in the policy decision which is Annexure P-10. The decision to include any particular village/villages, for transfer of Gaon Sabha lands to the Revenue Department, is purely one of policy. A writ court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, would be ill-advised: to interfere with such policy decisions, save and except where the decision is -mahifestly arbitrary or perverse. The subjective decision of the competent executive authority has, in such cases, to be accorded pre-eminence over that of the writ court, whose province is limited to that of judicial review.

¶19

No^sSg material has been pointed out by the petitioner that how they are going to be affected if their village is not included in the list in question. The only submission by the counsel for petitioner in this regard is that if this village is included in the list at Annexure P-10 then the land of the gaon sabha will get further protection otherwise there shall be encroachment. This contention is devoid of any merit. If there is any encroachment in the village Holambi Kalan, all remedies are available with the gaon sabha for W.r.(C) 10741/2016 Page 5 of?

¶20

¶21

unauthroised or illegal encroachment. It is presumed by the petitioner that there shall be no remedy available with the gaon sabha of village Holambi Kalan to protect its property. As and when such type of encroachment will be there, gaon sabha of village Holambi Kalan can approach the concerned court in accordance with law for the removal of such encroachment. 5. Looking to the second prayer in this writ petition, it appears that this petitioner seeks development of the gaon sabha of village Holambi Kalan, Delhi. We find no reason to enteriain this prayer at this stage because it all depends upon the gaon sabha of village Holambi Kalan as to how to develop their property. There is no restriction for the development of the gaon sabha Holambi Kalan. All depends upon their financial position. 6. Moreover, counter affidavit "has been filed by the respondent No.2 - Delhi Development Authority. Paragraphs 3 and 13.1 of the affidavit reads as under:

¶22

"3. That the contents of para no. 3 are denied except to the extent that they are matters- of'record. It is denied that the petition involves 40 acres of Gram SabJ^q Land. It is submitted, that the present writ petition isMisdph'Ceived in law and facts and deserves an outright dismissdlby this Hon'ble Court.

¶23

13.1 That the contents of para no. 13.1 are denied except to the extents that have been specifically.pdmitted. It is denied that in spite of having 40 acres of Gram Sabha Land, residents of village Holambi Kalan are denied basic facilities like maternity hospital and cremation ground. There is the facility of several hospitals to the north and south of the area such as Maharaja Agrasen Hospital, Febris Multispecialty Hospital, Satyawadi Raja Harish Chandra Hospital approx. 6 kms from Holambi Kalan and a cremation ground in Khera Kalan approx. 6 kins away. It is denied that the said land though taken under acquisition is' lying vacant under possession of en'croachers and its compensation amount Is still lying with

¶24

IV. p. (C) 10 741/2016

Page 6 of 7

I?'

BDO. The possession has been taken and the compensation has been paidfor the subject land. "

¶29

Thus, in view of tlie aforesaid aspects of the matter, there are already facilities available at village Holambi Kalan, Hence, we find no reason to give further directions to respondents to give the facilities as stated in the memo of the writ petition. Facilities of the village to be given by the gaon sabha always depend upon ,,t!ie, resources of the gaon sabha and the allocation of the money from the concerned respondent authority for the development or for the infi-astructure.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid observation, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition, hence the same is hereby dismissed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI-Slfe^^R,*-?

AUGUST 08, 2019

W.P.(C) 10741/2016

Page 7 of 7

Dalit Pichhara Varg Alpsan Kayak Vikas Samiti v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dalit Pichhara Varg Alpsan Kayak Vikas Samiti v. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

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

Sh. Mahmood Alam Khan and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

V Mart Retail Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Sh. Lalit Kumar Bakshi Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Bahl Builders (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Chogori India Retail Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S Airads Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Abhijit Mishra Vs National Housing Bank & Anr.

V Mart Retail Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Arpit Bhargava Vs Union of India and Anr.

Dr. J. v. Singh and Anr. Vs Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of NCT Delhi and Anr.

Dharmender Kumar Vs the Commissioner East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Abhijit Mishra Vs National Housing Bank & Anr.

Mark Splendour Nonwovens Pvt. Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner Central Excise