Page 1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3432 OF 2012
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9091 of 2011).
Delhi Administration and others … Appellants
Versus
Kaushilya Thakur and another … Respondents
J U D G M E N T
G.S. SINGHVI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 22.9.2010 passed by the
Division Bench of the Delhi High Court whereby the appeal preferred by the
appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge was dismissed and the
direction given by him for consideration of the case of the writ petitioner,
namely, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur (husband of respondent No.1) for allotment of
1000 sq. yards land was upheld.Page 2
3. By notification dated 13.11.1959 issued under Section 4(1) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’), the Government of India proposed
the acquisition of 2275 Bigha and 18 Biswa land of village Kotla for planned
development of Delhi. The declaration under Section 6(1) was issued on
20.6.1966 and the award was passed on 5.1.1977. The possession of the
acquired land was taken on 25.4.1977.
4. The husband of respondent No.1, who is said to have purchased 1000 sq.
yards land forming part of Khasra Nos.166, 167 and 168 from Hari Chand son
of Mukh Dayal Singh, General Power of Attorney of M/s. Universal Colonizers
vide Sale Deed dated 12.7.1959 lodged claim for compensation and succeeded
in getting an amount of Rs.10126.30. On a reference made by the Collector
under Section 18 of the Act, Additional District Judge, Delhi held that the
claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.23,283/-.
5. After 10 years of receiving the amount of compensation in terms of the
award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur
submitted application dated 6.7.1987 for allotment of an alternative plot
measuring 1000 sq. yards. In para 5(ii) of the application, he gave the number
of the acquired land as plot No.70/2. In para 6, he mentioned that he had
purchased the land vide sale deed dated 12.7.1959.
2Page 3
6. The application of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur was rejected by Joint
Secretary (L&B), Delhi Administration on the ground that Khasra No.70/2 was
not owned by him. This was conveyed to him vide letter dated 28.8.1989, the
relevant portions of which are extracted below:
“With reference to your application dated 6.2.87 on the subject
noted above, I am directed to say that the Kh. No. 70/2
mentioned in your application belongs to Gram Sabha as per
report of land Acquisition Collector Delhi.
As such, you are not found eligible for alternative plot in lieu of
acquired land, in accordance with the policy as Kh. No. 70/2
was not owned by you, neither any compensation has been
received against this Kh. Number by you. Accordingly your
application is rejected.”
7. After about 2 months, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur made representation dated
12.10.1989 and reiterated his demand for allotment of plot by asserting that the
reason assigned by the Competent Authority was untenable. He claimed that
the benefit of the policy framed by the Government of India cannot be denied to
him because his entitlement to get compensation in respect of khasra No. 70/2
was accepted by Additional District Judge, Delhi and Gaon Sabha has no right
over the land comprised in that khasra number. Thereupon, the Special
Secretary, Delhi Administration sent letter dated 7.3.1990 to Ranjodh Kumar
Thakur and informed him that the decision communicated to him vide letter
dated 28.8.1989 holds good. The second representation made by Ranjodh
3Page 4
Kumar Thakur on 3.4.1990 was rejected by the Competent Authority on
10.3.1993 and the decision contained in letter dated 28.8.989 was reiterated.
8. Ranjodh Kumar Thakur challenged the rejection of his claim for
allotment of 1000 sq. yards land in Writ Petition No. 4450 of 1993. The same
was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.3.2003,
paragraphs 4 and 5 of which read as under:
“4. The aforesaid has happened apparently on
account of certain disputes between the vendor of
the sale deed dated 12-7-1959 and the gram
sabha in view of the fact that the vendor was the
colonizer. The matter was referred to adjudication
under Section 30-31 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 to determine this issue and judgement was
delivered by the learned Additional District Judge
in LAC No. 53/1979 on 26
th
April, 1986. It was held
in para 4 of the Judgement that the gram sabha
has failed to substantiate its claim and were not
entitled to any compensation. Another order was
rendered in the same case on 30-9-1986 which
refers the case of the petitioner in which it has
been stated in para 1 [xiv] that in so far as the
land of the petitioner concerned the sale was
admitted by the seller out of Khasra No. 70/2. The
aforesaid facts thus clearly show that the land of
the petitioner was acquired. Further petitioner has
got the compensation in respect of land In
question. Thus the impugned orders dated 28-8-
1989 read with 10-3-1993 reiterating the same
cannot be sustained and are hereby quashed. The
petitioner is thus eligible for allotment of alternate
plot. The case of the petitioner has to be
considered for the said allotment subject to
4Page 5
fulfillment of the normal formalities and other
conditions prevalent at the relevant time.
5. It directed that the petitioner shall appear
before Deputy Secretary, [Alternate] Department
of Land & Building Government of NCT of Delhi,
Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi on 4
th
April, 2003 at 3.00
P. M. and the necessary action shall be taken and
the recommendation be made in terms of the
policy of the respondent within a maximum period
of three months from the said date which has to
be communicated to respondent no. 1 within the
said period of time for further action by
respondent no.l.”
9. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of the learned
Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court solely on
the ground that the Reference Court had accepted his entitlement to receive
compensation in lieu of the acquired land which formed part of khasra No.70/2
of village Kotla. The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench is
extracted below:
“In view of the aforesaid, there is no doubt that the respondentpetitioner was granted compensation in respect of the land situated
in Khasra No. 70/2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that
the grant of compensation does not establish ownership because
tenants are also granted compensation. It is contended by her that
the respondent was required to prove his ownership. On a perusal
of the order passed by the Land and Acquisition Collector, which
has been brought on record as well as the order passed by the
Reference Court, we do not notice that the compensation was
granted to the respondent treating him as a tenant. In the absence
of the same we do not perceive any error in the order of the learned
Single Judge.”
5Page 6
10. We have heard Shri H.P. Raval, learned Additional Solicitor General and
Shri Rishikesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record. In
our view, the impugned order as also the one passed by the learned Single
Judge are liable to be set aside because,
(i) While granting relief to the husband of respondent No. 1, the learned
Single Judge overlooked the fact that the writ petition had been filed
after almost 4 years of the rejection of an application for allotment of
1000 sq. yards plot made by Ranjodh Kumar Thakur. The fact that
the writ petitioner made further representations could not be made a
ground for ignoring the delay of more than 3 years, more so because
in the subsequent communication the concerned authorities had
merely indicated that the decision contained in the first letter would
stand. It is trite to say that in exercise of the power under Article 226
of the Constitution, the High Court cannot entertain belated claims
unless the petitioner offers tangible explanation – State of M.P. v.
Bhailal Bhai (1964) 6 SCR 261.
(ii) The claim of Ranjodh Kumar Thakur for allotment of land was clearly
misconceived and was rightly rejected by the Joint Secretary (L&B),
Delhi Administration on the ground that he was not the owner of land
comprised in khasra No. 70/2. A bare reading of Sale Deed dated
12.7.1959 executed by Shri Hari Chand in favour of Ranjodh Kumar
6Page 7
Thakur shows that the former had sold land forming part of khasra
Nos. 166, 167 and 168 of village Kotla and not khasra No.70/2. This
being the position, Ranjodh Kumar Thakur did not have the locus to
seek allotment of land in terms of the policy framed by the
Government of India. The payment of compensation to Ranjodh
Kumar Thakur in terms of the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Collector and the enhanced compensation determined by the
Reference Court cannot lead to an inference that he was the owner of
land forming part of Khasra No.70/2. In any case, before issuing a
mandamus for allotment of 1000 square yards plot to the writ
petitioner, the High Court should have called upon him to produce
some tangible evidence to prove his ownership of land forming part of
Khasra No.70/2. Unfortunately, the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench of the High Court did not pay serious attention to the
stark reality that Ranjodh Kumar Thakur was not the owner of land
mentioned in the application filed by him for allotment of 1000 square
yards land.
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order as also the order
passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by
the husband of respondent No.1 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their
own costs.
7Page 8
…..……….....……..….………………….…J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
…………..………..….………………….…J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
New Delhi,
April 09, 2012.
8
