Partly allowed

Smt. Savita Devi v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Delhi HC10 Feb 2020W.P.(C)/8195/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the order rejecting the petitioner's application for an alternative plot in lieu of acquired land. It directed the respondent to reconsider the application upon filing of documents within six weeks subject to payment of court costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.10.2017 quashed. Petitioner granted six weeks to file documents and pay costs of Rs.15,000/-; concerned Committee to reconsider application.

Smt. Savita Devi Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi — Land Acquisition | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~A-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 8195/2018

¶4

SMT. SAVITA DEVI ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Naresh K.Daksh, Adv. versus GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through Mr.Shivam Yadav, Adv. for Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Adv. for LAC and L&B Ms.Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing Counsel for DDA/R-2

¶5

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

O R D E R

10.02.2020

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to impugn the order dated 23.10.2017 by which the application of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of an acquired land was rejected by the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that the agricultural land situated at village Kilokari, New Delhi which was possessed by Smt.Angoori Devi i.e. mother in law of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent for Planned Development of Delhi vide Award dated 19.06.1992. The compensation was received by his mother in law on different dates and lastly on 20.03.1997. As per the Rehabilitation Policy, on acquisition of said land, Smt.Angoori Devi submitted an application for allotment of alternative plot. The documents that were sought were duly submitted by late Smt.Angoori Devi. It is pleaded that since the respondents have been considering applications as per seniority, the application submitted by Smt.Angoori Devi remained pending. Smt.Angoori Devi

¶10

expired on 31.01.2011. The case of Smt. Angoori Devi was taken up on 8.3.2013 by the respondents who required some information and documents. It is pleaded that in the years 2015 to 2017 respondents issued various other letters to the petitioner for submission of Relinquishment Deed and Indemnity Bond. Since some of the legal heirs were minor and studying the petitioner was advised to seek necessary permission or get the documents executed through their natural guardian. While the documents were being prepared the respondents passed the impugned order.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents had asked the petitioner for submission of a relinquishment deed executed by other legal heirs of the deceased, indemnity bond in original in favour of President of India through Pr.Secy.(L&B) duly registered with Sub Registrar and status of remaining land and certified copy of Award via communication issued in 2016. Petitioner was in the process of collecting these documents when the impugned order was passed.

¶12

This court has under similar facts and circumstances in W.P.(C) 6792/2018, Balesh Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order dated 9.7.2018 condoned the delay in filing documents on imposition of costs.

¶13

I also cannot help noticing that the petitioner/predecessor of the petitioner had filed an application for allotment of alternate land on 24.4.1997. The respondents themselves took up this application for consideration in 2013 and have rejected the same in 2017. Considering the time taken by the respondents themselves in dealing with the application, it will be in the interest of justice that some further opportunity is granted to the petitioner to file the documents in question.

¶14

Accordingly, subject to the petitioner paying costs of Rs.15,000/- to the Delhi High Court Advocates’ Welfare Trust and subject to filing the necessary documents within six weeks from today with the respondent, the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 shall stand quashed.

¶15

Thereafter the concerned Committee of the respondent No.1/appropriate officer of respondent No.1 shall reconsider the application of the petitioner based on the freshly filed documents as per law.

¶16

With the above directions, the petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶17

JAYANT NATH, J

¶18

FEBRUARY 10, 2020

¶19

Smt. Savita Devi v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Savita Devi v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vitthal College of Education and Anr. Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Anr.

Sanjay Bhandari Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sarju Rai Memorial Degree College Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Sayala College Sayala Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Ors.

M/S. Bas Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs Karamvir Singh

S K Cosmetics Vs the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and Ors.

M. D. Overseas Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Alok Kumar Vs Jawaharlal Nehru University & Anr.

Mr. Pritpal Gaba Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Amita Mishra Vs the Commissioner East MCD and Ors.

Subhash Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mr. Sanjay Gupta Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Anand Tyagi Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr.

Amit Kumar Vs the Commissioner North Delhi Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.