Bassi Builders vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

CM No. 12105/2008 in WP(C) 740/1990, CM No. 12101/2008 in WP(C) 769/1990, CM No. 12102/2008 in WP(C) 770/1990, CM No. 12136/2008 in WP(C) 812/1990, CM No. 12129/2008 in WP(C) 2379/1990 and CM No. 12128/2008 in WP(C) 2380/1990

All above captioned writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.8.2008. For the reasons stated in each application we hold that sufficient cause has been shown for non-appearance on behalf of the respective petitioner on 18.8.2008. The applications are allowed. Order dated 18.8.2008 is recalled. Each writ petition is restored for hearing.

WP(C) 740/1990, WP(C) 769/1990, WP(C) 770/1990, WP(C) 812/1990, WP(C) 2379/1990 and WP(C) 2380/1990

Heard for disposal.

The petitioners pray that directions may be issued to the respondents to allot a residential plot to them in Delhi.

The petitioners of WP(C) 769/1990, WP(C) 2379/1990 and WP(C) 2380/1990 had purchased only 1 bigha land each in the revenue estate of village Malikpur Kohi @Rangpuri. The petitioners of the other writ petitions had purchased 1 bigha and 2 biswa land each in said village.

The purchases have been made by all petitioners on different dates in the month of September 1985.

A declaration u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued on 23.12.1986. A large chunk of land of village Malikpur Kohi @ Rangpuri was proposed to be acquired. After following the procedure prescribed by law under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, lands were acquired, including those of the petitioners.

The acquisition was for expansion of Palam Airport. The acquired lands were placed directly under the jurisdiction of CPWD which in turn handed over the same to the Airport Authority.

The claim in the writ petitions is predicated on a policy decision of the Government of India requiring a residential plot to be allotted to a person whose agricultural land in Delhi is acquired.

Though not pleaded in any writ petition the policy in question is called The Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961.

In the writ petitions, reliance has been placed upon minutes of a meeting dated 22.5.1986 which inter alia records as under:

(4) Allotment of alternative plots in respect of land acquired for non-plan schemes:

After a detailed discussion it was felt that there is no justification for allowing this discrimination in allotment of the plan and non-plan acquisitions. It was therefore decided that in future allotment of plots on priority basis at cost price to eligible persons in the very zone or near the zone from where the land has been acquired. The criteria about the eligibility and size of the plots will be governed by the standing rules relating to allotment of alternative plots with suitable modification.

To appreciate the minutes of the meeting dated 22.5.1986 sufficient would it be to record that the meeting took place in the chamber of the Lt.Governor of Delhi. It considered the dichotomy in Delhi where only those persons were being allotted alternative plots whose lands were acquired for the planned development of Delhi and placed at the disposal of DDA vis-a-vis those whose lands were acquired for non-planned purposes and not placed at the disposal of the DDA. But no formal directive was thereafter issued.

In a nutshell, case of the petitioners is that under the Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 and the minutes of the meeting dated 22.5.1986, they are entitled for allotment of an alternative plot.

The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res integra. Various decisions have been pronounced on the subject. The latest decision is the one pronounced by us today dismissing WP(C) No. 2349/1988 Mehar Chand and Ors v. Union of India.

In a nutshell, with reference to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court reported as AIR 1994 Delhi 29 Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors. where the impact of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules 1981 was considered with reference to The Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 it has been held that with the promulgation of the Nazul Land Rules 1981, provisions of The Large Scale Acquisition Policy 1961 would no longer be applicable and entitlement to an alternative plot would be only as per the Nazul Land Rules 1981. Noting that the Nazul Land Rules 1981 required allotment of an alternative plot only to said persons whose lands, upon acquisition, were placed at the disposal of the DDA, it has been held that no other persons would be entitled to an alternative plot other than under the Nazul Land Rules 1981. Meaning thereby, that all those who were affected by acquisitions post 1981, entitlement of an alternative plot has to be considered only as per the Nazul Land Rules 1961.

Incidently it may be noted that the decision in Mehar Chand''s case (supra) related to acquisition of land for expansion of Palam Airport. Though, lands subject matter of said writ petition were comprised in the revenue estate of village Shahabad Mohmmadpur.

The decision in Mehar Chand''s case (supra) also notes a decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as Ravi Khullar and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court noted with approval the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Ramanand''s case (supra).

It would be interesting to note that the decision in Ravi Khullar''s case (supra) relate to lands comprised in village Mahipalpur, Nangal Devat and Malikpur Kohi @Rangpuri. Writ petitioners of said petitions who were staking a claim for an alternative plot whose lands in village Malikpur Kohi @ Ranpuri were acquired for expansion of the Palam Airport had lost the battle right up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

The minutes of the meeting dated 22.5.1986 are thus neither here nor there for the reason no policy decision can be contrary to statutory rules. The second reason is that the minutes of the meeting never culminated into any formal policy being notified.

The writ petitions have no merit.

Before concluding it would be not out of place to record that it appears to be a case where the petitioners came to know of the proposed acquisition and went about purchasing 1 bigha and 2 biswa land each. One fails to understand as to what agricultural activity could be carried out on such uneconomic holdings. The petitioners appear to have resorted to a predatory tactic, that upon acquisition of the land purchased by them they would reap the benefit of developed plots allotted to them at concessional rates.

The Rule is discharged.

The writ petitions are dismissed.

No costs.