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.   

2

Page 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  

3

Page 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 26th 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  

4

Page 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 4th 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 respondent- petitioner 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.”

5

Page 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  

6

Page 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.

7

Page 8

…..……….....……..….………………….…J.               [G.S. SINGHVI]

…………..………..….………………….…J.               [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]

New Delhi, April 09, 2012.          

8