Rajveer Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors

,,,

Prathiba M. Singh, J",,,

Brief Facts,,,

Three writ petitions being W.P. (C) 8195/2008, W.P. (C) 3271/2008 and W.P. (C) 3607/2011 i.e., the present petition, were filed in this Court in",,,

respect of 100 sq. yards of additional land located next to the properties of the Petitioners in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. The two writ petitions being",,,

W.P. (C) 3271/2008 andW.P. (C) 8195/2008 have already been dismissed vide ordersdated 25th February, 2019 and 27th February, 2019 by a ld.",,,

Single Judge of this Court. On multiple occasions, this matter was also listed alongside W.P.(C) 8067/2015, which petition was also dismissed by this",,,

Court on 30th August, 2019. The present petition is, however, pending consideration.",,,

The facts in this case are that on 30th August, 1969, a licence deed was executed in favour of one Mr. Mam Chand in respect of property bearing",,,

No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Mr. Mam Chand sold the said property in 1962 in favour of Ms. Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal. After the",,,

death of Ms. Gian Devi and Mr. Banarsi Lal, a conveyance deed dated 30th June, 2010 was executed by Respondent No.1 i.e., the Union of India",,,

(hereinafter, “UOIâ€) in favour of their legal heirs i.e., Mr. Raj Kumar Sharma, Mr. Ram Chander Sharmaand Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma. The",,,

Petitioner purchased the property from the said three owners on 12th July, 2010.",,,

There were several plots in Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi adjacent to which were additional strips of land measuring approximately100 sq. yards",,,

that were under the occupation of the respective plotowners. The Petitioners property is one such property.,,,

In the year 1970, a Memorandum was issued providing additional strips of land at the rate of Rs.60/- per sq. yard to owners of corner tenements. A",,,

sum of Rs.6,000/- was directed to be deposited by plot holders within 15 days of the issue of the said circular. The plot holders are said to have",,,

requested Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., the UOI and the Land and Development Officer (hereinafter, “L&DOâ€), to either reduce the amount to",,,

be deposited or permit the same to be deposited in instalments. No reply was, however, received by the plot holders. Instead, on 31st August, 1981,",,,

considering the fact that these additional strips of land were already under the occupation of the respective owners of the adjacent properties, a",,,

decision was taken to transfer the said additional strips, subject to payment of Rs.50,000/- within six weeks from the issue of the said letter. The",,,

predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner i.e., Mr. Banarsi Lal, sought payment of the said amount in instalments which request was rejected vide letter",,,

dated 17th October, 1981. Admittedly, the said amount was never paid. The Petitioner thereafter repeatedly approached the Land & Development",,,

Officer (hereinafter, “L&DOâ€​) for allotment of the said strip of land, however, the allotment was not made by the L&DO.",,,

Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:",,,

“a. To issue a Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction directing the respondent No.1 and 2 to regularize",,,

the additional strip of land adjoining to the property bearing No. 17, Rampuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi in the name and in favour of the",,,

petitioner.,,,

b. To issue Writ of Prohibition or any other appropriate Writ thereby restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession,,,

of the petitioner and his family members in respect of the additional strip of land adjoining to the property bearing No. 17, Rampuri,",,,

Kalkaji, New Delhi.",,,

c. Pass any such other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice in favour of the,,,

petitioner.â€​,,,

Procedural History,,,

The present petition was listed from time to time along with the other writ petitions mentioned in paragraph 1. Vide order dated 11th September,",,,

2017, this Court had recorded that the Petitioner is willing to pay the current market value of the additional strip of land. The said order reads as under:",,,

“1. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are ready and willing to pay the current market value of the property in,,,

question. Indisputably, the property in question (a strip of land adjacent to the comer plot) was offered for allotment to the predecessor of",,,

the petitioner, but he could not pay the necessary amount at the relevant time.",,,

It appears that strips of land adjoining corner plots were offered because there was no other alternative use for the said property and,,,

was otherwise in the possession of the allottees of respective the adjoining plot.,,,

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the property in question has been in occupation for about 67 years and the petitioner is,,,

ready and willing to pay the current market value of the said property.,,,

The learned counsel for respondent no.1 and 2 seek time to take instructions in this regard.,,,

List on 07.12.2017.â€​,,,

In response to the said order, ld. counsel for the Respondents submit that instructions were obtained on 17th July, 2018 where it was clearly",,,

conveyed by the competent authority that the additional strips of land cannot be allotted to the Petitioner and similarly placed persons. The said letter,,,

reads as under:,,,

“Sub:- WP(C) 3607/2011, RajveerSharmaVs UOI &Ors. â€" reg.",,,

Sir,",,,

Please refer to your letter dated 13/09/2017 wherein you have enclosed a copy of the orders dated 11/09/17 of the Hon’ble Mr.Justice,,,

Vibhu Bakhru on the above-caption matter.,,,

The Hon’ble Judge vide his orders dated 13/09/17 has directed to submit instructions of this office with regard to willingness of the,,,

petitioners to pay the current market value of the additional strip of land adjacent to his property.,,,

In this regard it is submitted that the Technical Wing of this office has conducted a detailed survey of all the four additional strips of land,,,

Srl. No.,Court Case No.,"Addi(cid:17)onal Strip of land

adjacent to",Status Report

1.,WP(C)/3607/2011 1,"7, Rampuri, Kalkaji",Regular Plot

2.,WP(C)/3271/2008,"44, Rampuri, Kalkaji",Regular Plot

3.,WP(C)/8067/2011,"M-44, Kalkaji","The plot falls on the ‘Right

of the Way’.

4.,WP(C)/8195/2008,"7, Rampuri, Kalkaji","The plot falls on the ‘Right

of the Way’.

allotment offer of the authorities, allotment cannot be directed.",,,

In Dharam Raj (supra), wherein this Court has observed as under:",,,

“18. Insofar as the petitioner’s contention that he is required to be treated at par with other allottees who have been allotted,,,

additional strips of land is concerned, the L&DO has filed an affidavit affirming that the Department of Rehabilitation had allotted",,,

additional strips of land in two cases. One pertaining to the strip of land adjacent to property No. 72 and the other relating to strip of land,,,

adjacent to plot No. 62 in the same locality.,,,

In this regard it is clarified that the additional strip of land adjacent to property No. 72 was allotted in compliance with the order dated,,,

05.01.1989 passed by this Court in C.W.P.789/1974 captionedSmt Purnima Deb v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors. A perusal of the,,,

said judgment indicates that the petitioner therein had applied on 08.05.1970 for allotment of the additional strip of land at the reserve,,,

price pursuant to the instructions dated 23.02.1970. The petitioner’s request was not acceded to as, at the material time, it was found",,,

that the strip of land was between two quarters, namely, quarter no. 72 and 73, and the petitioner was called upon to acquire the property",,,

by way of an open auction. As is apparent, the facts in that case are materially different. In the present case, the petitioner’s",,,

predecessor/petitioner was offered allotment of the Additional Land on two occasions but the said offer was not accepted.,,,

The additional strip of land adjacent to property No. 62, Rampuri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji was allotted in compliance with the decision",,,

in Suit No. 256/1988. In that case, the plaintiff had deposited a sum of ₹10,000/-pursuant to the offer made in terms of the letter dated",,,

31.01.1981. The plaintiff had claimed that in terms of the policy instructions dated 24.10.1961 the petitioner was entitled to pay the 20% of,,,

the reserve price as an initial installment and the balance in seven equated annual installments. The plaintiff’s case that he was entitled,,,

to pay the balance of ₹40,000/- in installments was accepted. The petitioner’s case cannot be treated in parity with this case as",,,

well,because he/his predecessor had not accepted the offer made by the respondent for allotment of additional land.",,,

The petitioner’s request for conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold has not been accepted on the ground that the,,,

petitioner has encroached upon the Additional Land. The said decision cannot be faulted as it is in conformity with the respondent’s,,,

policy not to allow conversion in cases where the lessees have encroached upon public land.â€​,,,

Similarly, in Gian Chand Tuteja (supra), the ld. Single Judge followed Dharam Raj (supra) and observed as under:",,,

“15. There is no dispute that the Additional Land belongs to the Government of India and the petitioner has illegally occupied the same.,,,

It is apparent from the facts that on two prior occasions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 had offered to allot the Additional Land to the",,,

petitioner’s predecessor â€" once on 07.12.1970 and thereafter, on 31.08.1981. On both occasions, the petitioner’s predecessor in",,,

interest had failed to accept the said offer within the stipulated time. Having failed to accept the offer and pay the requisite cost, the",,,

petitioner can claim no right over the Additional Land.,,,

The only issue that requires examination is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim allotment of the Additional Land on the basis of the,,,

current policy. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had issued a circular dated,,,

07.01.2003, whereby it was recommended that any vacant piece of land which is adjacent to a plot of land allotted to any lessee may be",,,

allotted to the lessee at market rates. The petitioner contends that in view of the said Circular, the petitioner is entitled to acquire the",,,

Additional Land at market rates.,,,

In addition to the above, it was also contended that respondents have allotted such additional strips of land to similarly placed allottees",,,

and, therefore, the petitioner could not be discriminated against and was required to be treated at par with such allottees.",,,

The aforesaid issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Dharam Raj v. Union of India &Ors.: W.P. (C) 3271 of 2008,,,

decided on 25.02.2019. In view of the said decision, the petitioner’s case that he is entitled to allotment of the Additional Land is",,,

unmerited, and is thus, rejected.â€​",,,

This Court has examined the present case. The Petitioners in the writ petitions mentioned in paragraph 1 are similarly placed. The decisions in,,,

Dharam Raj (supra) and Gian Chand Tuteja (supra) clearly cover the present writ petition. The request for allotment of additional land cannot be,,,

acceded to as the said land belongs to the Government, though the same is under illegal occupation of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner’s",,,

predecessor had failed to accept the offers given by the Government on not one but two occasions. The payment not having been made at the,,,

relevant point of time and the land admittedly not belonging to the Petitioner, no relief is liable to be granted in the present petition.",,,

The present writ petition is thus liable to be dismissed. All pending applications are disposed of.,,,