Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Rajender Kumar v. Union Of India & Others

Delhi High Court

Dec 17, 1991

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Summary of the Court Opinion (B.N. Kirpal, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition arises from acquisition of about 27 Bighas of land owned by the petitioner’s father for planned development of Delhi. Under the Delhi Administration's acquisition policy, persons whose land was acquired were entitled to allotment of an alternative plot. The father applied for land in 1982 and died in 1983. The petitioner thereafter approached the Land and Building Department seeking allotment in his favour and, on 17 March 1986, submitted a letter stating he was the only heir together with an affidavit, death certificate, a relinquishment deed and a list of legal heirs.

After administrative inaction, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. Notices were issued to the respondents; the Delhi Administration failed to file a reply despite time being granted and successive opportunities. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) replied that it could allot only upon the Delhi Administration indicating the petitioner’s entitlement. The petition proceeded on the basis that the petitioner’s averments against the Delhi Administration went unrebutted.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the petitioner (as heir of the father whose 27 Bighas were acquired) is entitled to allotment of an alternative plot under the acquisition policy applicable to the father’s 1982 application.
If entitled, what size and location of plot should be allotted (whether the petitioner is entitled to a plot not exceeding 400 sq. yards, preferably in Rohini or otherwise in the North Zone).
What rate is payable for the allotment — the rate as on the date of the father's 1982 application or the rate as on the date of allotment after delay.
Whether relief should be granted despite the respondents’ delay and failure to file a proper reply.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner furnished documentary proof (affidavit, death certificate, relinquishment deed, list of legal heirs) and claimed to be the sole heir entitled to the alternative plot originally sought by his father.
Reliance on a note dated 22 January 1983 by the then Lt. Governor of Delhi (Annexure J) stating that alternative plot sizes should not be reduced below 400 sq. yards where large chunks of land were acquired, and that the size should be worked out on the basis of 40% of the land acquired subject to a maximum of 400 sq. yards.

Delhi Development Authority's Position (as stated in the reply)

The DDA stated an allotment could be made to the petitioner only if the Delhi Administration indicated the petitioner’s entitlement; no recommendation had been received from the Delhi Administration, hence no allotment was made.

Delhi Administration / Respondent Conduct

The Delhi Administration did not file the required reply despite notice and opportunities; appearances ceased after 28 January 1991.

Mrs. Mala Goel's Contention

Mrs. Mala Goel contended that the rate at which the allotment is to be made should be determined as on the date of allotment (i.e., current/market rate at allotment), not as on 1982.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded on the factual material before it and the respondents’ defaults. Because the Delhi Administration failed to file a reply after being granted time and opportunities, the Court treated the petitioner’s averments against the Delhi Administration as unrebutted and thereby admitted. The DDA’s limited reply — that it could allot only upon a recommendation from the Delhi Administration — was noted.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s reliance on the Lt. Governor’s note dated 22 January 1983 (Annexure J) which, in the Court’s view, contained the operative policy: (i) there was no justification for restructuring the size of alternative plots to less than 400 sq. yards where large portions of land were involved, and (ii) the alternative plot size should be computed at 40% of land acquired subject to a maximum of 400 sq. yards. The Court saw no material on record indicating that this policy had been varied.

Applying that policy to the facts (27 Bighas acquired in Village Badli in the North Zone; father’s application filed in 1982), the Court concluded the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot not exceeding 400 sq. yards, preferably in Rohini and otherwise in the North Zone. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the DDA to allot such plot once the petitioner completed formalities and paid the necessary price, with the allotment to be made in accordance with Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act (as cited in the opinion).

On the question of price, the Court rejected Mrs. Mala Goel’s contention that the rate should be determined at the date of allotment. The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s father had a vested right to the allotment at the rate applicable when he applied in 1982 and that the petitioner should not be penalised for delay caused by the respondents. The Court invoked the equitable principle that no party can take advantage of its own wrong and observed that grave injustice would result if the current market price were charged after the respondents’ delay. Consequently, the rate to be charged was declared to be the rate payable in 1982 when the father applied.

Finally, the Court awarded costs to the petitioner to be paid by the Delhi Administration and fixed counsel’s fee at Rs. 1,000/-. The petition was disposed of in the stated terms.

Holding and Implications

Writ petition disposed of; writ of mandamus issued in favour of the petitioner.

Direct consequences:

The Delhi Development Authority is directed to allot to the petitioner, upon completion of formalities and payment of price, a plot not exceeding 400 sq. yards, preferably in Rohini or otherwise in the North Zone, in accordance with Section 21 of the Delhi Development Act.
The rate payable by the petitioner shall be the rate that would have been payable at the time the father applied in 1982.
Costs are awarded to the petitioner against the Delhi Administration; counsel’s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.

The opinion does not discuss broader precedential implications beyond these direct effects on the parties; no new legal principle or precedent beyond the application of the stated administrative policy and equitable principle against profiting from one’s own wrong was articulated.

Show all summary ...

B.N Kirpal, J (oral):— The father of the petitioner owned about 27 Bighas of land which was acquired for planned development of Delhi. In accordance with the policy of large-scale acquisition which had been promulgated by the Delhi Administration, the persons whose lands were acquired were entitled to allotment of an alternative plot.

In the year 1982 the father of the petitioner applied for land. He, however, died in 1983. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Administration seeking allotment of land in his favour. On 17th March, 1986 a letter was written by the petitioner to the Delhi Administration in which it was stated that he was the only heir of his father and that he had deposited an affidavit and death certificate. He also, alongwith the lettr of 17th March, 1986, deposited the relinquishment deed and list of legal heirs.

As is normally the case with the Government Departments, this citizen did not get any redress. It is thereupon that the present writ petition was filed.

Notice to show cause was issued on 23rd July, 1990. On 3rd Septmber, 1990 time was granted to file a reply-affidavit within four weeks. No reply was fild on behalf of the Delhi Administration. After 28th January, 1991 no one even entered appearancee on behalf of thee Delhi Administration. Notice was the directed to be issued on the Standing Counsel, Delhi Administration. Therafter again time was taken but no reply filed. It is indeed distressing to note that the Government Departments due to their laxity do not comply with the orders of the Court and do not file the replied which they are required to do.

Having given sufficient opportunity to the respondent-Delhi Administration to file the reply, we see no reason as to why any further opportunity should be granted. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the writ petition on the basis that the averments made by the petitioner qua Delhi Administration go unrebutted and thereby admitted. As far as the Delhi Development Authority is concerned, its reply is very simple. It is stated that an allotment can be made in favour of the petitioner by the Delhi Development Authority only on the Delhi Administration indicating the entitlement of the petitionr. As no recommendation from the Delhi Administration has been received, therfore, the Delhi Development Authority has not allotted any plot of land.

27 Bighas of land having been acquird, the petitioner would be entitiled to allotment of a plot of size not more than 400 sq.yards The petitioner's land which was acquired was in Village Badli which falls in the North Zone. According to counsel for the petitioner, the land of the petitioner was acquired for Rohini Residential Scheme. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a note deated 22nd January, 1983 by the then Lt. Governor of Delhi (Annexure J to the writ ptition) in which it is stated that there is no justification for restructuring the size of the alternative plots to less than 400 sq.yards specially when the farmer has comparatively large family and when large chunks of land belonging to the farmers are required. It is further stated in this not that th size of the alternavtiv plot should be worked out on the basis of the formula of 40% of the land acquired subject to a maximum of 400 sq.yards There is no other document on the record which would indicate that this policy of the Lt. Governor containd in the said note of 22nd January, 1983 has in any way been varied.

The petitioner's father had applied for land in 1982. 27 Bighas of land had been acquird and, therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to alternative plot of land in the North Zone in terms of the Lt. Governor's aforesaid not of 22nd January, 1983.

We, therefore, issue a writ of mandamus directing the Delhi Development Authority to allot to the petitioner, on the petitioner completing all the formalities and paying the necessary price, a land measuring not mor than 400 sq. yards preferably in Rohini and if no land of this size is available in Rohini then in the North Zone of Delhi. The allotment will be made by the Delhi Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the Delhi Dvelopment Act. The rate which will be payable would be the rate which would have been payable at the time when the father of the petitioner had applied in 1982.

We may here note the contention of Mrs. Mala Goel that the rate at which the allotment is to be made is to be determined as on the date of allotment. We find little justification for this. Because of the delay or in-action on the part of Governmental authorities the right of a citizen to get alternative plot of land when that right accrues at the rate applicable on that date cannot be defeated. The petitioner's father got a vested right to the allotment of the land at the appropriate rate in 1982. If for nine years the Delhi Administration makes no recommendation and, consequently, the Delhi Development Authority is under no justification to charge the present market price. Grave injustice would be caused if we were to accept the contention of Mrs. Goel in this regard. It is a well known principle that no party can take advantage of its own wrong. The respondent-Delhi Administration has acted wrongly in not recommending to the Delhi Development Authority the land which should be allotted to the petitioner. The Delhi Development Authority is also a part and parcel of the Delhi Administration. Because of the undue delay on the part of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be penalised.

We, therefore, direct that the rate which will be charged from the petitioner is the one which would have been payable by the petitioner's father when he applied for alternative plot of land in 1982. The petition stands disposed of in the aforsaid terms.

The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Costs will be paid by the Delhi Administration only. Counsel's fee Rs. 1000/-.