Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1345 (DEL)

BALLU SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2007-07-10

SANJIV KHANNA

body2007
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, CJ. ( 1 ) THE appellants herein being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30th May, 2007, in a batch of writ petitions, have filed the present appeals seeking stay of dispossession from immovable properties occupied by them in Village Nangal Dewat. It is claimed that the appellants should not be dispossessed till entire development work in the alternative plots in the Village Rangpuri, New Delhi is duly completed. ( 2 ) SIMILAR writ petitions were filed by various persons including the appellants whose land situated at Village Nangal Dewat was acquired for the purpose of extension of International Airport at Delh. Notice under the provisions of sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, in respect of the land of the appellants herein and others were issued in 1972. The land stood acquired after an award was passed by the competent authority in 1986. ( 3 ) AS against the aforesaid acquisition proceedings, a writ petition was filed which was registered as WP (C) No. 481/1982. The aforesaid writ petition came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge. During the course of hearing of the said writ petition, the appellants gave up the challenge to acquisition proceedings of their land and instead pressed only for the relief of rehabilitation by allotment of alternative land. The writ petitions were disposed of with a direction that the appellants will be allotted alternative land in accordance with the terms of the scheme, which was then being framed. ( 4 ) BY virtue of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants herein have become entitled to allotment of alternative land. The allotment of alternative land is being made free of cost to the appellants and others, and the entire cost is being paid by Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and DDA. In addition the appellants and others are entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. To the aforesaid extent of making available alternative land to the appellants in addition to the compensation, there is no dispute raised by any of the parties. In that view of the matter, it is established that the appellants would not only receive compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition act, but would also get alternative land for construction of residential houses. In that view of the matter, it is established that the appellants would not only receive compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition act, but would also get alternative land for construction of residential houses. Alternative plots of sizes between 26 sq. mtrs. to 650 sq. mtrs. are being allotted. ( 5 ) LEARNED Single Judge in the impugned judgment has also recorded that the respondent ? Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. is willing to pay rent as per prescribed rate for a period of six months from the date of taking possession of their land, so as to enable the appellants to start and complete construction of their houses in the allotted alternative land. ( 6 ) FROM the records we find that on 7th September, 2006, the Delhi Development authority had issued a communication to the appellants on the subject of allotment of plot in Village Rangpuri, Delhi in lieu of Village Nangal Dewat. Under the said communication, the Delhi Development Authority outlined conditions of allotment and the area of plot being allotted. A corrigendum was thereafter issued by the Delhi Development Authority wherein the date for handing over possession of land to the appellants was preponed to 31st October, 2006. Thereafter, another corrigendum was issued on 9th November, 2006 by which the date 31st October, 2006 for handing over possession of land was extended to 30th November, 2006. In the said communication it was also mentioned that other terms and conditions of allotment letter dated 7th September, 2006 would remain unchanged and unaltered. Thus the appellants are aware and have knowledge that they have to vacate and shift. They have been given sufficient time to make alternative arrangements. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge after hearing the parties persuaded the respondent no. 3 to modify some of the clauses of the allotment letter in favour of the appellants and in terms of their request which aspect is elaborately dealt with and mentioned in the impugned judgment and order. The alternative plots allotted to the appellants and others are made free hold so as to ensure convenience and allotment is also being made to all persons even if they or their spouses or dependents already own property in Delh. The alternative plots allotted to the appellants and others are made free hold so as to ensure convenience and allotment is also being made to all persons even if they or their spouses or dependents already own property in Delh. ( 8 ) THE specific directions have been issued by the learned Single Judge in his order which are summarised in paragraph No. 36 of the judgment. We have perused the said directions in the light of the records of the case and also given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties. The principal challenge of the appellants in respect of the impugned judgment and order is on the ground that the eviction of the appellants has been given priority over the rehabilitation of the appellants, which, according to the counsel for the appellants, should have been given preference and importance in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in N. D. Jayal and another v. Union of India and others reported in 2004 (9) SCC 362 . It was also submitted before us that the appellants are being evicted from their land and homes to which the appellants have agreed, provided they are rehabilitated by providing them alternative land wherein they can construct their residential houses, and that till such residential houses are constructed, possession of the land which was acquired should not be taken by evicting the appellants. It was also brought to our notice that the basic amenities like water supply and electricity are still not available and that in view of said position, construction of houses by them within the stipulated six months would not be a reasonable period and that minimum of two years period should have been granted to the appellants to construct their residential houses in the said plots. It was also submitted before us that although a Committee has been constituted by the learned Single judge, no effective sitting of the said Committee nor any effective decision has taken place and, therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and quashed. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid submissions have been considered by us. The land of the appellants was acquired by the competent authority under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act in public interest. e. for the development, modernisation and expansion of Indira Gandhi International Airport. ( 9 ) THE aforesaid submissions have been considered by us. The land of the appellants was acquired by the competent authority under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act in public interest. e. for the development, modernisation and expansion of Indira Gandhi International Airport. The aforesaid purpose as it appears has acquired urgency in view of the upcoming Common Wealth Games in 2010. The infrastructure at the Indira Gandhi International Airport is inadequate to meet even the present demand. Expansion has to be immediately undertaken, if India is to hold the prestigious sporting event. It was pointed out to us during the course of arguments that the respondent No. 3 is required to construct and complete a new runway of 4400 metres length, 60 metres width, 1 metre depth, which is incidentally going to be the longest runway in Asia and would be able to accommodate new generation aircrafts as well as Taxiways, which is to be made ready and available for landing and takeoff by 31st March, 2008. The respondent No. 3 has also proposed to start the construction of the new integrated Terminal Building which is targeted to be completed by 28th February, 2010 leaving some time to integrate the new Integrated Terminal Building with the existing terminal building and to make the same operational by October 2010, when the Commonwealth Games are scheduled to start. The aforesaid purposes for which the land is required are definitely public purposes. Since larger public interest is involved, any delay can result in triste consequences which can cause damage to prestige and reputation of the nation. The aforesaid land which is acquired must be made available to the respondent No. 3 as expeditiously as possible so as to enable them to meet the targets as proposed. At the same time, the interest of the appellants has also to be considered and kept in mind. It is agreed that they have to be rehabilitated by providing them suitable alternative land so that they are able to construct their residential houses and live in them. A balancing act has, therefore, to be made to see that the interest of both the parties is safeguarded and looked after. It is agreed that they have to be rehabilitated by providing them suitable alternative land so that they are able to construct their residential houses and live in them. A balancing act has, therefore, to be made to see that the interest of both the parties is safeguarded and looked after. Keeping this aspect in view, the learned Single Judge considered the matter and has done a balancing act to protect the interest of both the parties by persuading the DDA to change the terms and conditions of the allotment and giving various directions as summed up in paragraph 36 of the judgment. The respondent No. 3 has agreed to pay to the appellants and others rent for a period of six months depending upon the area of the land allotted to them. A rental scheme offered by the respondent No. 3 for Nangal Dewat Villagers who are eligible for alternative plots at Rangpuri was placed before us during the course of arguments. ( 10 ) IT is, therefore, established that the appellants, whose land stands acquired for the aforesaid public purpose, are entitled to receive compensation in lieu of their land in terms of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. In addition, they are also provided with alternative plot of land at Rangpuri, which is near to Vasant Kunj in South Delhi and also rental amount for a period of six months so as to enable them to complete construction of their residential houses. ( 11 ) IT was, however, pointed out by Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, appearing for the appellants, that there is no possibility of completing construction without there being provision of the basic amenities like supply of electricity, water and other developmental work and also sanction of the building plan etc. Similar submissions were also made before the learned Single Judge, who considered the same very sympathetically and has issued several directions in that regard. Directions have been issued to the Delhi Jal Board to supply water to the allottees of the plots at Village Rangpuri through water tankers in adequate quantity which will commensurate with the needs of the allottees of the plots at Village Rangpur. Directions have been issued to the Delhi Jal Board to supply water to the allottees of the plots at Village Rangpuri through water tankers in adequate quantity which will commensurate with the needs of the allottees of the plots at Village Rangpur. As regards to water for construction purposes, a direction is issued that such requests made by the allottees to the Delhi Jal board will be considered and given weightage considering the special nature of the problems faced by the allottees. Directions have also been issued to the bses to ensure that on or before 25th October, 2007, electrification of Rangpuri lay out project is completed. Similar directions have also been issued regarding completion and laying down of the C.. water pipes and also laying down electricity lines. In order to ensure the effective implementation of the directions, a Monitoring Committee is also directed to be constituted with representatives of various agencies. ( 12 ) A further direction is issued directing the Chief Secretary of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to constitute a Committee on or before 11th June, 2007 to monitor development work at Rangpuri and ensure compliance with the deadlines and times fixed by the court and the agencies. The Committee can also examine problems faced by the allottees and suggest solution. We are informed that such a Committee has already been constituted and meetings of such committee are being held. ( 13 ) IT was stated before us that no effective decision has been taken by the said committee till date. In view of such submission being made, we direct that the committee so constituted shall meet as expeditiously and as often as required and monitor the functioning of all the agencies so that the directions issued by this court are properly implemented adhering to the time schedule as fixed by this court. In case there is delay in adhering to the time schedule, as fixed by the court, it shall be open to the appellants to approach the learned Single judge for getting suitable orders and ensure implementation of the scheme within the time schedule. In case there is delay in adhering to the time schedule, as fixed by the court, it shall be open to the appellants to approach the learned Single judge for getting suitable orders and ensure implementation of the scheme within the time schedule. We may also add that since rental amount is being paid by the respondent No. 3 to the appellants for a period of six months for completion of the residential houses by the appellants, six months time as allowed by the learned Single Judge for construction shall be counted from the date of expiry of the rental period and the allottees shall be allowed to complete their residential houses within a period of one year from the date of initial date of handing over possession or the date on which possession is required to be handed over to the respondent No. 3, whichever is earlier. If, however, the appellants are unable to complete the construction of the houses within the aforesaid period, another six months time in terms of the order passed by the learned single Judge can be granted, on the allottees showing extenuating circumstances and justification for the said extension. ( 14 ) IN terms of the aforesaid order, directions and modification with regard to the period of completion of construction of building, we dispose of the appeals without interfering with any other direction of the learned Single Judge. No costs.