Umrao Singh vs Delhi Admn

A.K. Sikri, J

Mr. S.S. Dalal, learned counsel for the respondent has not appeared. In these circumstances, we have requested Mr. Sanjay Poddar, learned counsel for the LAC to assist us in these matters. In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the communication dated 30th September, 1991 vide which their request for allotment of alternate plot after acquisition of their land has been rejected. The rejection order states that as per the existing policy, the owner whose land is taken should own the land for a minimum period of five years prior to the date of notification issued u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition act. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this condition of five years was introduced vide office order dated 3rd April, 1986 and even the counter affidavit states that by that office order, earlier policy dated 2.5.1961 was amended. His submission is that the policy decision dated 2.5.1961 stands modified in view of Nazul Land Rules framed after coming into force the Delhi Development Authority. Those rules were framed in the year 1981 and are

statutory in character. Therefore, according to learned counsel, vide office order dated 3rd April, 1986 which is of administrative nature, no further condition can be imposed which would tantamount to amending the statutory rules. In this behalf he submits that Rule 6 of Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 prescribes the conditions for allotment of Nazul land at pre-determined rates and case of the petitioner is covered by sub-clause (i) thereof. The Nazul Land Rules 1981 have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by clause (j) of sub-section (2) of section 56 read with sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. Therefore, they have statutory force. Such a rule can be amended only in the manner prescribed u/s 56 read with Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act. The imposition of any further condition than those stipulated in Rule 6, by an administrative order therefore would not be permissible which would amount to amending Rule 6. The impugned order of the respondent rejecting the representation of the petitioners is therefore set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent-authorities to consider the request of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained in Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981. It goes

without saying that respondent would be permitted to take into consideration the nature of the policy as well as the conditions stipulated in policy dated 2.5.1961 to the extent it remains intact even as per the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ramanand vs. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1994 Delhi 29. These petitions are disposed of in the above terms.