Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs Jai Kishan Aggarwal (Blind) and Another

The present appeal is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dated 17th September, 2007. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents (original petitioners in the writ petition) purchased a plot of land bearing No. 216, measuring 200 sq. yards, forming a part of Khasra No. 95 in Village Kondli, Shahdara, Delhi in 1972. It is averred that respondent No. 1 is a blind person. The property was acquired for the purpose of construction of STP at Kondli. An award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector and the possession of the land was taken over. The respondents had approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 155/98 asking for quashing of the award or in the alternative for allotment of a plot in lieu of the acquired land. This Court disposed of the said writ petition directing the Government of NCT of Delhi to decide the respondents'' request for allotment of an alternative plot. Applications were made by the respondents to Land and Building Department for allotment of an alternative plot. The Government of NCT of Delhi rejected the application of the respondents on the ground that only those persons were eligible for allotment of alternative plot, where the acquired land is not less than 150 sq. yds. in respect of award announced prior to 3rd April, 1986. As per the said decision, since the total land purchased by the respondents was only 200 sq. yds. and their individual share being only 100 sq. yds., they were not eligible for allotment of an alternative plot.

The learned single Judge has rightly held that the appellant (original respondent in the writ petition) had not denied that both the respondents were joint owners of the acquired land measuring 200 sq. yds. It is also not denied that they had approached the Court with a joint petition earlier. The respondents had approached the appellant for alternative land. The copies of the forms filled by both the respondents were lodged with the appellant simultaneously. The learned single Judge has correctly observed that a facial reading of the form can cause confusion as it does not provide for joint applicants. These circumstances, as per the learned single Judge, supported the version of the respondents that they made separate applications though on the same date on being advised to do so. Their applications were also considered by the appellant together. Nevertheless, the appellant chose to ignore the reality that both the respondents had sailed together right from the beginning and continued to do so later.

We are in agreement with the learned single Judge that the findings of the that the respondents were together when the land was purchased, when it was acquired and award published and still latter when previous writ petition was filed and disposed of. In these circumstances, the learned single Judge has rightly held that characterizing their individual entitlement on the basis of undivided share as 100 sq. yds. was unreasonable. As owners of an undivided plot, both of them in law had equal rights in respect of acquired land. Thus, the learned single Judge was absolutely correct in observing that considering the fact that acquisition was of an undivided plot, the appellant could not treat it as divided and deny the respondents their eligibility. Therefore, the rejection of the request of the respondents for an alternative plot was rightly held to be arbitrary and unreasonable.

We find no infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge to warrant any interference by us. It may also be pertinent to mention here that there is delay of 533 days in filing of the present appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of as well.