- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Daryao Singh. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion concerns applications filed by applicants/objectors aggrieved by a consolidated list prepared by a Nodal Officer (appointed by orders dated 28.4.2004) of persons considered eligible for allotment of alternate plots in lieu of lands acquired in Village Nangal Dewat.
Key factual and procedural events recited by the Court (as set out in the opinion):
- On 16 February 1982, approximately 366 residents of Village Nangal Dewat filed a writ petition seeking quashing of a notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and restraint on publication of the award and interference with possession of lands and structures.
- The Court issued notice and granted a limited stay on the award to enable the Union of India to consider rehabilitation of residents within three months. Between 1986 and 2001 the acquisition was described as being for the public purpose of extension of Palam Airport (International Section) and a rehabilitation scheme was initiated; additional land in Rung Puri Village was being acquired for rehabilitation.
- On 2 August 2001 the petitioners gave up their challenge to the acquisition and confined relief to rehabilitation (alternate allotment). Counsel for the International Airport Authority of India (IAAI) assured the Court that alternate land had been acquired and that persons named in the acquisition award would be allotted alternate land in accordance with a Scheme to be framed within six months; the writ petition was disposed of on that basis. A review petition (No. 9312/2001) by one petitioner remained pending.
- Progress in implementing the rehabilitation scheme was slow; the Court issued directions at various times (including directions after a meeting held on 9 August 2002). The Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to make lists of persons entitled to alternate plots and the Tehsildar was directed to decide mutation applications (order dated 29 October 2003). The Court directed inclusion of legal heirs in the draw of lots subject to mutation being decided.
- Because of continued delay, on 28 April 2004 the Court appointed Mr. S.S. Kanawat, ADM, as Nodal Officer to coordinate the process and to prepare and decide on a list of eligible persons, consider objections to erroneous inclusions, address mutation issues, and otherwise manage the eligibility process (the order specified tasks (a) to (f)).
- The Nodal Officer prepared a consolidated list of 316 eligible persons. Objections were filed (82 applications/objections) challenging the list and related matters; certain community allotment issues were raised by Harijan and Backward Jan Kalyan Samiti. The Court allowed parties to examine the list (order dated 16 December 2004) and directed a draw of lots process by DDA for those found eligible (order dated 14 January 2005).
- The respondents explained (24 February 2005) that the Nodal Officer's list was tallied with the naksha munta zamin; the Airport Authority of India identified 167 persons whose entitlement and category were undisputed and was directed to provide that list to DDA.
- Counsel and the Amicus Curiae discussed and proposed guidelines/criteria for determining eligibility and entitlement; the Court recorded the agreed criteria and directed that the guidelines (set out as Schedule-I in the order) be followed by the Nodal Officer. The Court also directed that affected parties approach the Nodal Officer within 15 days with applications based on those criteria, and restricted further interlocutory applications in the disposed writ petition.
- The Nodal Officer Mr. S.S. Kanawat was later transferred; Mr. A.K. Singh, Addl. District Magistrate, South District, was appointed as the new Nodal Officer to carry forward the remaining work. The applications were disposed of in terms of the Court's directions.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether and to what extent the Nodal Officer appointed by the Court can determine entitlement and title to land (including questions arising under succession law and wills) for the purpose of allotment of alternate plots.
- What criteria should govern eligibility for allotment of alternate plots where the original land-owner's name appears or does not appear in revenue records as on 28 April 1972.
- How claims of legal heirs (LRs) should be treated where the original owner died after 28 April 1972 and mutation applications are pending.
- Whether separate structures raised by successors/relations on land of the original owner give rise to individual entitlement to alternate plots distinct from the entitlement of the original land-owner.
- Whether transactions (sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will) executed after 28 April 1972 can be the basis for claims to alternate allotment processed by the Nodal Officer.
Arguments of the Parties
Applicants / Objectors (represented in part by Mr. Jayant Bhushan and Mr. Jayant Bhushan's submissions summarized)
- Where a claimant's name does not appear in revenue records as on 28 April 1972, the Nodal Officer should consider a Will or bequest (with a "No Objection Certificate") and process such cases for alternate allotment of eligible heirs in terms of the Will.
- Where separate structures were raised by sons/legal heirs on the original holder's land, those heirs argued for recognition of their distinct entitlement to alternate plots based on separate structures and separate compensation in the award.
International Airport Authority of India (counsel Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta)
- Explained that alternate land had been acquired for allotment to persons whose land was acquired for expansion of the International Airport and that, of the persons in the award, certain numbers (167) had undisputed entitlement and category for allotment.
- Explained that the Nodal Officer's list was tallied with naksha munta zamin to identify those whose entitlement was not in dispute.
Amicus Curiae (Mr. Ravinder Sethi)
- Assisted the Court in formulating draft guidelines/criteria for considering entitlement and eligibility for alternate plots; proposed guidance consistent with the position that ownership of land is of original holders and that joint ownership for alternate allotment could be granted to those shown as owners of structures.
Harijan and Backward Jan Kalyan Samiti
- Raised grievance that names of persons forming part of the Samiti were not included in the Nodal Officer's list, arguing for community/group allotment in cases where Gaon Sabha had allotted land to the community.
Court's recorded consensus and responses to party submissions
- The Nodal Officer could not be empowered to determine entitlement and title under succession law (including decisions based on Wills) — such matters require declaration by a competent court; claims based on these grounds must be kept in abeyance pending court determination.
- Legal heirs whose applications for mutation are pending (where original holder is in records as on 28.4.1972 but died thereafter) may be considered for joint allotment to the legal heirs based on the original holder's entitlement and category.
- For claims based on separate structures raised by heirs, the Court recorded conditions for individual allotment (see criteria in Court's analysis and the guidelines): (i) name of legal heirs appearing separately in the survey report and naksha munta zamin for distinct holdings; (ii) legal heirs having raised separate structures in separate holdings and having received separate compensation in the award.
- The Nodal Officer would not accept claims for allotment based on transactions after 28 April 1972 (sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will).
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court proceeded by describing the procedural history, identifying the obstacles to implementation of the rehabilitation/allotment scheme, and determining what matters could be delegated to the Nodal Officer and what matters required adjudication by a competent Court.
Principal points of the Court's reasoning (as explicitly recorded in the opinion):
- The slow and incomplete implementation of the rehabilitation scheme justified the appointment of a senior officer (Nodal Officer) to coordinate and to make determinations on eligibility and to consider objections to the list of eligible allottees, subject to defined limits on his jurisdiction (order dated 28 April 2004 setting out tasks (a) to (f)).
- The Nodal Officer's role was to draw up a list of eligible persons, consider objections to erroneous inclusions, decide issues arising in drawing up the list, consider mutation claims (subject to Tehsildar assistance and decisions), and prepare lists for the Court—however, the delegated power was limited and did not extend to adjudicating substantive questions of entitlement and title (particularly in relation to succession and Wills).
- Where a claimant's name did not appear in the records as on 28 April 1972, the Court held that the Nodal Officer could not determine entitlement based on Wills or bequests; instead such claimants must obtain a declaration of entitlement/title from a competent court before the claim for allotment could be processed. The limited jurisdiction conferred on the Nodal Officer in the writ jurisdiction could not be expanded to decide succession/title matters.
- Where the original holder appeared in records as on 28 April 1972 but died thereafter with legal heirs' mutation applications pending, such cases were to be considered for joint allotment to legal heirs based on the original holder's entitlement and plot category.
- In cases where legal heirs had raised separate structures on distinct holdings, the Court accepted the possibility of individual allotment only if (i) the legal heirs' names appeared separately in the survey report and naksha munta zamin for distinct holdings, and (ii) the legal heirs had raised separate structures on separate holdings and had been separately compensated in the award.
- The Court agreed that no claim based on post-28 April 1972 transactions (sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will) would be entertained by the Nodal Officer.
- Accordingly, the Court recorded settled guidelines/criteria (referred to as Schedule‑I) to be followed by the Nodal Officer. The Court directed that persons claiming entitlement should file applications/requests before the Nodal Officer within 15 days, and that any challenge to the Nodal Officer's decision must be pursued by substantive proceedings in appropriate forums rather than by interim applications (CMs) in the disposed writ petition. Registry was directed not to entertain such interlocutory applications in the writ petition.
- The Court also addressed administrative continuity by noting the transfer of the Nodal Officer Mr. S.S. Kanawat and appointing Mr. A.K. Singh as the successor Nodal Officer to carry forward the work.
Holding and Implications
FINAL HOLDING: The applications/objectors' filings are DISPOSED OF in terms of the directions recorded in the opinion.
Immediate consequences and practical implications arising from the Court's directions (as set out in the opinion):
- The Nodal Officer is to apply the settled guidelines/criteria (Schedule-I) in determining eligibility and size/category of alternate plots and to consider objections to the consolidated list of eligible allottees.
- Persons who consider themselves eligible under the guidelines may apply to the Nodal Officer within 15 days from the date of the order, stating entitlement in terms of the guidelines/criteria.
- Claims that require adjudication of title or succession (for example, where a claimant's name did not appear in the records as on 28 April 1972 and reliance is placed on Wills or succession) are to be kept in abeyance by DDA and AAI pending determination by a competent court; the Nodal Officer is not empowered to decide such matters.
- Where the Nodal Officer rejects an application for mutation or allotment, the aggrieved party must seek substantive relief through appropriate proceedings (competent forums) and not by interlocutory applications in the disposed writ petition; the Registry is directed not to entertain such applications in the writ petition.
- Claims based on transactions after 28 April 1972 (sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will) will not be accepted by the Nodal Officer for allotment purposes.
- Administrative continuity ensured: Mr. A.K. Singh was appointed as successor Nodal Officer following the transfer of Mr. S.S. Kanawat.
- No broader new legal precedent is recorded in the opinion beyond the Court's exercise of supervisory jurisdiction to set limited delegation, eligibility criteria, and procedural directions for implementation of the rehabilitation/allotment scheme; the decision primarily directs how the process should proceed and limits the Nodal Officer's jurisdiction on title/succession matters.
The Court also recorded appreciation for the work of the outgoing Nodal Officer Shri S.S. Kanawat and for the assistance rendered by Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate.
Manmohan Sarin, J.:— The above applications have been filed by the applicants/objectors aggrieved by the consolidated list prepared, by the Nodal Officer appointed vide orders dated 28.4.2004, of eligible persons entitled for alternate plots in lieu of their land holdings acquired in Village Nangal Dewat. Objections have now been filed in the writ petition which had been disposed of vide orders dated 2nd August, 2001.
2. For a proper appreciation and understanding of nature of objections and the scope thereof, it would be necessary to recapitulate, in brief, the facts leading to the filing of these objections:—
(i) On 16th February, 1982, nearly 366 residents of Village Nangal Dewat filed the above writ petition seeking quashing of the notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of their lands and structures. The petitioners sought restraint on the making and publication of the award and interference with possession of their lands and structures situated in Village Abadi in Village Nangal Dewat.
(ii) Notice in the writ petition was issued and the court granted a limited stay of operation of the award to enable the Union of India to consider the question of rehabilitation of the residents of Village Nangal Dewat within three months. During the course of proceedings in the writ petition, between 1986 to 2001, the court was informed that the acquisition had been done for the public purposes of extension of Palam Airport, International Section. Further that the Government had initiated a scheme for the rehabilitation of the residents, whose land was acquired in Village Nangal Devat and 713 Bighas and 2 biswas of land of land was being acquired in Rung Puri Village for rehabilitation.
(ii) On 2nd August, 2001, petitioners gave up their challenge to the acquisition and confined their relief to the rehabilitation of persons, whose land had been acquired at an alternative place. Counsel for International Airport Authority of India, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta informed the court that alternate land has been acquired for allotment to persons whose land was acquired for the expansion of the International Airport. Further that all persons whose names appear in the award for acquisition of the land, would be allotted alternate land in accordance with terms of the Scheme being framed within six months. Based on the above assurance, the writ petition was disposed of. It may be noted that a review petition bearing No. 9312/2001 has been filed by petitioner No. 262 namely Narain Singh S/o Richpal Singh claiming that the counsel who made the statement on 2nd August, 2001, was not authorised to do so. The review applicant was asked to furnish particulars of his land acquired with details and the matter was adjourned from time to time at the request of review applicant. The said application had remained pending all this while and is being separately decided.
(iv) There was tardy progress in the implementation of the Rehabilitation Scheme and the court was constrained to give directions from time to time to officials/authorities such as SDM, International Authority of India and Delhi Development Authority. Meetings were also held under the aegis of Lt. Governor and the scheme in terms of the minutes of the meeting held with Lt. Governor on 9th August, 2002 was directed to be made. Government of NCT of Delhi was directed to make list of persons entitled to alternate plots specifying the category to which they are entitled. It was urged by the respondent that a list of all those persons who were in possession of the land with area in their possession as on the date of acquisition had been prepared. It was said that naksha munta zamin had been prepared by the Revenue Authorities indicating the names of persons in possession on the date of acquisition. The Tehsildar was also directed vide orders passed 29th October, 2003 to decide the applications filed by the legal heirs for substitution. International Airport Authority of India was required to place on record the documents for categorisation of plots. The court directed in case of a deceased, whose land was acquired and whose L.Rs had applied for mutuation, to be included in the draw of lots, but the actual allotment for alternate plot would be made only after the application for mutation is decided by the Tehsildar.
(v) Despite the directions being given from time to time, the matter was not getting concluded and various applications were made in the disposed of writ petition seeking directions for implementation for the rehabilitation scheme. On 28th April, 2004, considering the lack of progress despite the Airport Authority of India claiming that it had carried out some exercise to find out the eligibility of different persons in different categories, the court came to the conclusion that the matter in controversy needed to be coordinated by a senior Officer to be assisted by the parties. Accordingly, Mr. S.S Kanawat, ADM was appointed as the Nodal Officer. The Nodal Officer in terms of the order dated 28th April, 2004 was given the following tasks:—
(a) Prepare a list of eligible persons for allotment considering the objections of different parties. Tehsildar was to assist the Nodal Officer;
(b) Objections to the erroneous inclusion from the eligibility/allotment list to be considered by the Nodal Officer; (c) Nodal Officer empowered to take a decision in respect of issues arising in drawing up of list;
(d) Issues of mutation in favour of legal heirs. Time granted to the parties to file the necessary documents within 15 days with the Tehsildar, failing which he would decide the issue on the basis of documents on record;
(e) Issue of eligibility of a particular category of persons, the Nodal Officer was required to prepare a list, leaving the question of eligibility of that category to be considered by the court;
(f) No impleadment or intervention applications were to be filed before the court as the parties had been granted permission to approach the Nodal Officer.
3. The Nodal Officer presented a list of eligible persons numbering 316 copies of which were given to the parties. Harijan and Backward Jan Kalyan Samiti made a grievance on 16th December, 2004 in court that the names of the persons forming part of the Samiti have not been included in the list. The Nodal Officer clarified that since Gaon Sabha allotted land to the community, the alternate land has to be allotted to the community as a group and not to individuals wherever allotment was made to individuals by Gaon Sabha, they would be considered for alternate allotment. What remained to be determined was the entitlement of persons to plot and size thereof. My learned predecessor in his order dated 16th December, 2004 also noted “Learned counsel for private parties state that they would like to examine the consolidated list and if any individuals have any objections, they may be permitted to file in court, but the exercise aforesaid may be carried out on so that at least the people found eligible are not made to wait.” It is the aforesaid observation which has led to filing of the spate of the applications and objections numbering 82 which are being disposed of by this order.
4. On 14th January, 2005, when some of these objections were listed, it was directed that all those who have been found eligible by the Nodal Officer would participate in the draw of lots to be carried out by DDA. The allotment, if any, would be subject to further orders as may be passed in this case. Regarding objections filed by different applicants, counsel submitted that they would offer certain suggestions, if found feasible by the court for acceptance, failing which applicants be left to avail of independent legal remedies as available. This opportunity was being given in view of the order dated 16th December, 2004 which mentioned regarding filing of objections to the report of the Nodal Officer. Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate was asked to assist the court as an Amicus Curiae.
5. On 1st February, 2005, counsel for the petitioner, respondents and the objectors submitted that they would like to sit with the Nodal Officer and Amicus Curiae to understand the basis of the list of eligible 316 allottees. Respondents were required to explain as to how when the award mentioned 689 persons, the eligibility had been confined only to 316 persons.
6. The respondents apprised the court on 24th February, 2005 that the list as prepared by the Nodal Officer was tallied with naksha munta zamin to narrow down the number of eligible persons whose entitlement was not in dispute. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, counsel for Airport Authority of India, submits that there are 167 eligible persons in respect of whom, there is no doubt regarding their entitlement and the category of plot to which they are entitled. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for Airport Authority of India was directed to furnish the list to DDA. Further draw of lots to include the total number of plots falling in a particular category to ensure that there was no favoured or preferential allotment qua location.
7. Some of the applicants/objectors claim that where the original land owner had died and whose name appeared in the award, all the Lrs were entitled to joint allotment. It was urged that in some cases more than one allotment had been made to the LRs on the basis of their separate residence, while in others, L.Rs have been given single joint allotment. These are the issues which are to be decided by the Nodal Officer.
8. Mr. Sethi, Amicus Curiae and Mr. Gupta submitted that they had proposed draft guidelines or criteria to be adopted for the purpose of considering entitlement and eligibility of individuals entitled to alternate plots. Copies were made available to the various applicants/intervenors. Parties were also given opportunity to offer their suggestions or objections to the proposed guidelines or criteria. The applicants/objectors were asked to give their objections and suggestions to Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Senior Advocate, representing few of petitioners, who would then consolidate the same and make copies available to Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta and Mr. Sethi, Amicus Curiae. The guidelines/criteria, taking into account the suggestions on behalf of the objectors, response thereto of the respondents-AAI and the Amicus Curiae, were considered.
9. The main concern of numerous applicants/objectors was with regard to the cases:—
(a) Where the name of the objector/claimant does not appear in the records as on 28.4.1972 Mr. Bhushan submitted that the Nodal Officer should consider the Will or bequest, if any, produced with “No Objection Certificate” and process the case for alternate allotment of eligible heirs in terms of the Will. This was not found acceptable as a person whose name does not appear in the records as on 28th April, 1972, must seek a declaration from the competent court regarding his entitlement and title even though probate may not be necessary in such a case. The limited jurisdiction intended to be conferred on the Nodal Officer by an order passed in writ jurisdiction cannot be extended to determination of the entitlement and title to the land in question based on the law of succession. For all such cases or similar cases, DDA and Airport Authority of India would keep in abeyance the claim for the allotment of plot, pending determination of entitlement/title by the Competent Court.
(b) The second kind of cases were those where the name of the original holder appears in the records as on 28.4.1972 but has expired subsequent to 28.4.1972 and application(s) by the LRs for mutation is/are pending, such cases would be considered for joint allotment to LRs based on their eligibility and entitlement of the original holders as regards the extent of land and the category.
(c) Another class of objections sought to be raised on behalf of applicants/objectors, is where the land was owned by the father while independent structures were raised by his sons and legal representatives. The entitlement of alternate plot was being determined on the basis of the extent of land held by the original land holder.
Mr. Bhushan submitted that there was distinctiveness of ownership of structures and the land underneath. However, these were not mutated, since mutation was not permissible in the old abadi in the revenue records. As such the legal heirs, who despite owning separate and distinctive structures and even when their names appeared for compensation are deprived of the benefit of individual entitlement of alternative plots based on the proportionate land falling underneath their respective structures.
Mr. Ravider Sethi submitted that the ownership of the land was of the original land holders and the entitlement has to be determined with reference to the extent of land held by them. Joint ownership could be granted to the persons who are shown as owners of the structures in respect of the land underneath. However, it would be a joint allotment of the alternate plot. After hearing the counsel for applicants/objectors, respondent and Amicus Curiae the consensus which emerged for this class of cases was that legal heirs/applicants would be eligible for allotment of individual alternate plots upon the following conditions being satisfied:—
(i) Name of the legal heirs appear separately in the survey report and Naksha Munta Zamin in respect of distinct holdings;
(ii) Legal heirs who have raised separate structures in separate holdings for which they are given separate compensation in the award.
(d) It was also agreed that no claim for allotment of alternate plot based on a sale, mortgage, gift, relinquishment, power of attorney or Will, after 28.4.1972, would be accepted and entertained by the Nodal Officer.
10. As noted earlier counsel for the applicants/objectors, AAI and the Amicus Curiae were heard at length on the proposed guidelines/criteria for allotment of alternate plots. The guidelines/criteria to be followed by the Nodal Officer have been settled as per Schedule-I.
11. In view of the guidelines and the criteria as settled for alternate allotment, the objectors/applicants if they fall within the said guidelines or criteria may approach the Nodal Officer for inclusion of their names as an eligible alternate allottee or for determination of the size of their plots based on the above criteria. The said letters, requests or applications may be filed before the Nodal Officer within 15 days from today stating clearly their entitlement in terms of the guidelines/criteria. In case the Nodal Officer rejects any application for mutation or application for allotment, it would be for the concerned party to seek substantive relief in the appropriate proceedings and not by any CMs in this disposed of writ petition. Registry is directed not to entertain any such application against the decision of the Nodal Officer and/or either for impleadment or intervention or directions on the above subject matter in this writ petition.
12. The Bench has been informed that present Nodal Officer Shri S.S Kanawat, Addl. District Magistrate, South-West District, has been transferred to the Excise Department, NCT of Delhi and as such is not available for discharging the functions and remaining work as Nodal Officer. In his place Mr. A.K Singh, Addl. District Magistrate, South District, is appointed as the Nodal Officer to deal with the applications for allotment of alternate plots, in terms of the order passed by this Court.
13. Before parting with the case I must record my appreciation for the commendable work done by Shri S.S Kanawat, Nodal Officer, as also the useful assistance rendered by Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Sr. Advocate.
The aforesaid applications stand disposed of in terms of above directions.
Alert