Land & Building Department v. Sanjay Kumar & Ors

ORDER % ~

19.05.2017 C.M. Nos.18905/2017, 18907/2017. 18909/2017. 18947/2017 & 19019/2017 . , - . I Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications stand disposed of. LPA Nos. 381-385/2017 and C.M. No. 18904/2017. 18906/2017, 18908/2017.18946/2017 & 19018/2017 The appellant assails the judgment of the learned Single Judge, -whereby the learned Single. Judge has set aside The rejection of the applications of the respondents made for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of the acquisition of land of the respondents. The applications of each of the respondents were rejected on the ground That they had not been made within a period of one-year of the acquisition of their respective lands. The learned Single Judge has held that the delay, was not inordinate, and it was sufficiently explained. Consequently, the writ petitions of the respondents were allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the issue raised in the present appeals, is covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Govt. of NGT of Delhi Vs, Renu Aggarwal, LPA No. 156/2016 decided on 19.01:2017. In para^aph 9 & 10 of the said decision, the Division Bench has observed as follows: "9. The question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant could have rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of limitation envisaged in the policy. Relevant portion of the policy dated 30.11.1993 envisaging the period of limitation is reiterated as under: . "...6. As regards future cases i.e. those in which land acquisition proceedings are finalized after the date of this notice, applications for allotment of I alternative. plot will be considered by ' the department within a period of one year from the A date of finalization of the land acquisition \ proceedings. This will be a standing arrangement for which no separate public noticei fixing further time limits from time to time as in the past, will be required. The application forins will be supplied free of cost by the Land Acquisition Collector to the persons receiving the compensation at the time of its disbursement. In addition, copies may be obtained'free of charge from the Reception Counter of the Land & Building Department between 10. 00 A.M. and 5.00 P.M. on all working days...." . ,

¶10Material on record discloses that the appellant has not tendered any document to show that the public notice dated

30.11.1993 was in public domain'and easily accessible to the public at large rather it is averred by the appellant that there > was no need to have a separate public notice. We are in affirmity with the finding - of the learned Single Judge that between the issuance of public notice and notification under Section' 4, there was a gap of 10 years and it cannot be expected of an applicant to go thrdugh old document of the departmentforfiling the application." The said decision squarely applies in the facts of the present appeals. A I.. • Accordingly, the present appeals are dismissed following the decision dated 19.01.2017 in LPA No. 156/2016. ^ ' - / ' . !/!/./ VIPIN SANGHI, J • , r !5 (2 MAY 19, 2017 B.S. Rohelln DEEPA SHARMA, J / () $-.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW Er--- % Judgment pronounced on . r January, 2017 + LPA 156/2016 GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI .. . .Appellant Through Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, Advocate. Versus - RENU AGGARWAL Respondent Through--: Mr. Sanjeev Kurnar.Tya' i, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUST10E HON'BLE MS: JUSTICE SANG ITA DHJNGRA SEHGAL SANGITA DII INGRA SEHGAL,.J. C. M. APPL. No. 883512016 (DeIavii/iI;iig Heard. For the reasons stated in the application and in :the interest of justice, delay in filing the present appeáLis c6ndoned: Application stands disposed of LPA 156/2016

¶1The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 5493/2013 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition of the respondent. The unsuccessful respondent in the writ petition is the appellant before us.

¶2It is the case of the appellant that vide notification dated 21.03.2003 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the land failing in Village Barwala, Delhi was acquired by the Government for public use. Pursuant to the aforesaid notice, Award No. 12/05-06 was announced on

05.08.2005 and the land in question was transferred to the government department on 06.10.2005. Thereafter, on 23.07.2010, compensation was paid to the respondent. Further, on 14.11.2011, respondent applied for allotment of alternative plot but the appellant qNCTD refused to accept the said application and rettirned the same with an ñdorsement "cannot be accepted" as the same was filed beyond the periodfoneyear post from the N. 143 ,\ date of receipt ofc impënsatioii.. \ \

¶3Thereafter, th respondent iiiade a representation dafed 29.02.2012 to the appellant / GNCTD but there was n6 action taken and thereby the respondent filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 2509/2012 in this court which was disposed of on 18.03.2013direting the appellants to re-consider the application of the iespondent. Puruan( to the order , dated 18.03.2013 a - Recommendation Committee was - as formed hich caii tb the conclusion that the application of the petitioner , was bevond,.thc period of limitation. L 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the appellant filed another writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 5493/2013 before this Court wherein the Learned Single Judge held that: "9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the conclusion reached in the impugned communication cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned communication is set aside.

9.1. In these circumstances, the recommendation committee will issue the necessary recommendations for allotment of Page 2of5 alternate plot to the petitioner unless it is fettered by any other objections with regard to the documents filed by the petitioner. If there are any deficiencies, then the respondent will issue a notice to the petitioner indicating therein the date, venue and time at which she would be required to present herself The recommendation committee will, accordingly, afford a personal hearing to the petitioner, and thereafter, pass a speaking order in that behalf A copy of the speaking order, will be furnished to the petitioner within two weeks of the same being passed.

9.2. Needless to say, the entire exercise will be completed with due expedition though. not Iaier than two months from today. It is made clearp"tIzii if Me recommendation committee were to agree with he contention of the pe'titier then, she would be give -17 tI?esame vL'n1OrTh w 'which she ouldhave had got, had her ai y 'zcationhcc'n allowdni. rhefirstinstcce.

¶10Th€'pezuion is accodiigIi'. disposed of

¶5Feeling disinclined by the drder passed above the appellant herein preferred the present LettersPatent Appeal.

¶6Assailing the correctness of the order made in the, writ petition and inviting the attention ot4his court to the pliey dated 30:11.1993, Mr. Biraja Mahapatra, learned couns'èl for V theappellanr submitted that since the application for allotment of alternative plot was time barred as having been filed beyond the period of one year from the date of receipt of compensation the judgment is liable to be set aside.

¶7Contrarily, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent did not come across any advertisement etc. wherein the applications were invited from the owners of land whose land was acquired under the scheme. It was further urged by the Page 3ofs counsel that the payment certificate was required to be accompanied with the application form and the same could only be obtained by the respondent on 01 .09.2011 and therefore the respondent filed the application well within the stipulated time period.

¶8We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and perused the material record placed before us.

¶9The question that arises for our consideration is whether the appellant 4 could have rejected the application of the respondent on the ground that it was filed beyond the period of Iimittioti eiiiisaged in \the policy. Relevant ,. ,. portion of the polic y dated O. 11 .1 99 envisagingtheperiod of limitation is reiterated as under: •..q' I - .' • "...6 As regards future' cases 1. e. those in Jhich land acquisition proceedings aic :Rfl(1li_c)d after the date f this notice, applications for allotment of alternative plot will be considered by the department iithin a period of one year from the date of finaiizaiioii of the land acquisition proceedings. This wi/I be £? standing an angemcnt for which no separate public. notice. tìxingturthci tiii 1inuirs. fron time to time as in the past, Tui/I be required. ippliation forms will be supplied free oJ.cost by the. Land *jui.iition Collector to the persons receivingtlie . colnpen.sation. at the time of its disbursement. In addition, copies may be obtained free of charge from the Reception Counter of the Land & Building Department between 10.00 A. Al and 5.00 P.M on all working days...."

¶10Material on record discloses that the appellant has not tendered any document to show that the public notice dated 30.11.1993 was in public domain and easily accessible to the public at large rather it is averred by the appellant that there was no need to have a separate public notice. We are in Page 4of5

SEHGAL, J. SANGIT afflrmity with the finding of the learned Single Judge that between the issuance of public notice and notification under Section 4, there was a gap of 10 years and it cannot be expected of an applicant to go through old document of the department for filing the application.

¶11Undoubtedly, delay defeats equity if there is negligence attributed by the parties. In the present case, admittedly compensation was received by the appellant on 23.07.2010 and after obtaining payment certificate on

01.09.2011, he filed the application for allotment of an alternate plot on

14.11.2011, as such dela y ifml\ is neligibl&

¶12We are in con'oILtncc with the view taken bçthedearrted Single Judge and therefore therc is no justifiable reason to i nterferewith the order under appeal.

¶13Resultantly, the appeal being dc'oid otmerit is dismissed. 14 Before parting with this ordei thls'Lourt hastens to add at this stage that the existing public notice in qudtion shall be re-issued by the appellant to inform the public and akeit easily 7ai1bleTor them. • I -, - CHIEF JUSTICE JANUARY 92017 gr// P

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 381/2017 ' - LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Appellant versus SUSHIL KUMAR & ORS .....Respondents + " LPA 382/2017 LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT . .....Appellant versus LT BHIM SINGH & ORS ^ Respondent + LPA 383/2017 ^ LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' Appellant versus SANJAY KUMAR & ORS - Respondents + , LPA 384/2017 LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT Appellant versus SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS Respondents + LPA 385/2017 , ' . " I _ ' LAND & BUILDING DEPARTMENT ' ' Appellant versus A JAY SINGH & ORS Respondents I Through; Mr. B. Mahapatra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Prasanla Varma, Senior Central Govt. Counsel and Ms.Prativarani Varma, Advocate for respondent No.2/ .. "UOI. Ms. Mrinalini' Sen 46; Ms. Kritika Gupta, Advocates for respondent N0.3/DDA. ,.4 CORAM: , HONmE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI • HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA ' ' '