Chandgi Ram vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Haryana

R.S. Mongia, J.

According to the petition, the petitioners are displaced persons from West Pakistan and North West Frontier Province, who had become refugees in India. The Central Government had taken to itself the task of rehabilitating such displaced persons. For this purpose, The Central Government as well as State Government had acquired vast track of land at various places including a lot of area to develop an Industrial Town at Faridabad. Initially an authority called Faridabad Development Board was constituted to take the task of rehabilitation of the displaced persons. In the Industrial Town at Faridabad, however, the said authority was wound up with the enactment called The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter called ''the Act''). After the said Act had come into force, the properties so acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating displaced persons became part of compensation pool properties within the meaning of Section 14 of the Act.

Some houses were built in the Faridabad Town for rehabilitating the displaced persons. The petitioners were allotted the built houses alongwith appurtenant land ranging from 233 sq. yards to 313 sq. yards. The total consideration price of these houses ranged from Rs. 3000/ to Rs. 5000/. These were allotted by the Managing Officer of the Ministry of Rehabilitation Government of India, at Faridabad on hire purchase basis at a monthly instalment of Rs. 6/to Rs. 18/.

It has been further alleged in the petition that the frontage of the houses of the petitioners is on the main road and abutting the main road and in between the houses of the petitioners and the road, a vacant strip of land has been left from where the petitioners have ingress and egress to their houses from the main road through the said adjacent land. This adjacent land has also been referred to by the authorities as correctional area. It has been further averred in the petition that this adjacent land is so contiguous to the houses of the petitioners that practically it formed part of the houses and ever since the allotment of the houses they have been in possession of the adjacent land without any let or hindrance by any authority. It has also been stated in the petition that in the Township of Faridabad, there are many other similar houses like that of the petitioners, which had been allotted to some other displaced persons where also adjacent land abutted their houses. This adjacent land was transferred to those allottees by the authorities at a nominal rate of Rs. 3/ to Rs. 6/ per square yard. This was done by the Ministry of Rehabilitation Government of India. The names of such persons to whom adjacent land was transferred at nominal rate of Rs. 3/ to Rs. 6/ has been given in Annexure P3 to the petition. 22 such names have be mentioned in that list. It is also the case of the petitioners that they themselves as well as through Faridabad Welfare Association (registered under the Societies Registration Act), which looks after the interest of the petitioners, made numerous representations to the department calling upon them to allot the adjacent land in their favour at the rate of Rs. 3/ to Rs. 6/ or any other reasonable rates. A copy of the application made by Shri T.R. Malhotra, dated 10. 1. 1964 has been appended as Annexure P4 to the petition.

Most of the petitioners have built some kacha or pacca rooms or khokhas on a part of the adjacent land and the same is being used for some residential or commercial purposes like running a small shop or office or the like. Notices were issued under Section 4(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, to almost all the petitioners by the Estate Officer under the Eviction Act, as to why the petitioners should not be evicted from the adjacent land which was in their unauthorised occupation. The Estate Officer vide his order dated 6.2.1981 (Annexure P2) after going into the matter held as under :

"Keeping in view the facts that the owners have already raised structures and have been using the land for a very long time, I do not think any useful purpose would be served if they are evicted in this manner. For the purpose of allotment this authority is not competent to take any action, but the owners of the respective houses may approach the concerned authority for that purpose.

The contemplated action in pursuance of the said notices is hereby dropped and no further action is called for."

According to the petitioners after the Administrative and financial control of the compensation pool property was transferred to the State of Haryana they kept on making representations to the Government of Haryana and other concerned authorities for transferring the adjacent land in their favour. It was on 29.5.1984 that the petitioners were informed by Tehsildar (Sales)cumManaging Officer that the value of the adjacent land in the residential area had been assessed at the rate of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard and in the commercial area at the rate of Rs. 500/per sq. yard and further the petitioners were being offered the adjacent land at the rate of Rs. 500/ per sq. yard, it being commercial area. It may noticed here that in different Sectors the rate of area was different and so far as petitioners No. 71 and 72 (Dev Ram and Sunder Dass) are concerned the adjacent land was offered to them at the rate of Rs. 340/ per sq. yard on the basis that it was commercial area. It is not necessary to go into any further details of the facts but suffice it to mention that the petitioners challenged the fixation of price of the adjacent area before the authorities and submitted that in fact adjacent land had been allotted to similarly situated persons at the rate of Rs. 3/ to Rs. 6/ per sq. yard and there was no justification to charge the price of the adjacent land situated in the commercial area at the rate of Rs. 500/ per sq. yard and Rs. 250/ in the residential area. According to them, in Faridabad Town where the land was being allotted for developing the Town, the market value was not more than Rs. 100/ to 150/ per sq. yard. The petitioners lost before all the departmental authorities which led the petitioners in filing the present writ petition.

The point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there was no justification with the authorities to charge the price of Rs. 500/ per sq. yard for the adjacent land in the commercial area and Rs. 250/ per sq. yard for the adjacent land in residential area. The price of the adjacent land should have been Rs. 3/ to Rs. 6/ per sq. yard as was charged in similar cases earlier. However, the counsel confined his argument that the user of the adjacent land should not determine the value of the adjacent land but only the area where the adjacent land was situated. According to the learned counsel supposing in a residential area a small room had been constructed on the adjacent land, which was being used as a shop, the area does not become commercial. The colony or the area where the adjacent land is situated would still remain residential. The area which is commercial or residential has to be declared as such. Otherwise also what is a commercial area and what is a residential area is well understood by public at large. According to the learned counsel merely using a small portion of the adjacent land for commercial use would not convert the entire area or colony into commercial which otherwise is a residential area. Only criteria that would be adopted as whether the adjacent land is situated in & commercial area or in a residential area and not the user thereof. In any case, submitted the counsel, even if the user was to be adopted the criteria for determing the price of the adjacent land then only that much area could be valued as commercial which was actually and physically used for commercial purposes. In other words supposing there was a room of 10 x 10 feet, which was being used as a shop then only 100 sq. feet could be said to be commercial area and not the entire adjacent area. Consequently, according to the learned counsel the price of the adjacent land should have been Rs. 250/ per sq. yard as the adjacent land was situated in the residential area. He submitted that his clients were prepared to get the adjacent land allotted at the rate of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard.

It has not been disputed before me that the adjacent area is in the residential colony. If that is so there is no justification with the authorities to value the adjacent area on the basis of user. The user may differ from time to time. Initially a room which may be used as residential house may be used later on as a shop or vice versa. The criteria should be the situation of the adjacent land. If the same was situated in the commercial area, the value could be more than if the adjacent land is in the residential area. Consequently, I hold that once the Government had decided to allot the adjacent land to the occupants, though they were in unauthorised occupation of the same, then the price, that was to be charged could not be arbitrarily fixed. As observed above, the authorities could charge the price considering the adjacent land to be situate in the residential area for which admittedly the price had been fixed at Rs. 250/ per sq. yard. The user of the part of the adjacent land could not be a valid criteria for determination of the price of the entire adjacent land.

I had asked the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the petitioners were allotted the adjacent land at the rate of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard. They may not alienate and make money. To avoid speculation, I had asked him to get undertakings from his clients that if the land is allotted to them at the rate of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard (Rs. 170/ per sq. yard in case of petitioners No. 71 and 72) then they will not sell or alienate the adjacent land to any person in any manner for a period of 15 years. Such undertakings have been filed by all the petitioners except petitioner Nos. 15,44,46,47,48,49,50,55,56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85.

For the foregoing reasons I allow this writ petition and direct the respondent authorities to allot the adjacent land to the petitioners at the rate of Rs. 250/ per sq. yard except petitioner at Sr. Nos. 71 and 72, namely Dev Ran, and Sunder Dass, who will be allotted the adjacent land at the rate of Rs. 170 per sq. yard. The price so calculated would be payable in six yearly instalments with 9% interest per annum. The first instalment shall be paid within one month of the receipt of the allotment letter.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he had not been able to contact the clients mentioned above who could not file the undertaking. If the petitioners at serial numbers referred to above, who have not filed the requisite undertakings file similar undertakings with the respondent authorities within one month from today, they will be entitled to the same relief as the other petitioners. If they fail to file the requisite undertakings then the writ petition qua them would stand dismissed.

Before parting with the judgment, I may make it clear that it may not be taken that by virtue of this judgment any structure, kacha and pucca, that may have been raised by all or any of the petitioners on the adjacent land abutting their houses, is being regularised. It is for the concerned authorities to take any action in accordance with law regarding ''those structures which may be unauthorised. No order as to costs.