TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1473
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y person displaced on account of the partition, would not be evicted from their temporary residence, nor would any construction be removed unless certain conditions such as sector-wise plan or alternative accommodation was provided to them. 4. In furtherance of this assurance, the Gadgil Assurance Scheme ('Scheme') was floated by the Delhi Development Authority for certain areas in New Delhi. This Scheme was aimed at rehabilitating such displaced persons by providing them alternate houses or plots in the same area where they had been squatting. Considering the narrow purpose of the Scheme, it was targeted towards individuals who occupied the land prior to 15th August 1950. Under the Scheme, the following were recognized as beneficiaries: - a. Category A: Those who have occupied before 15th August 1950 would be allotted plots measuring 85.6 Sq. yds in the same area at pre-determined rate. b. Category B: Those who have occupied from 1950 to 1960 they will be provided plot measuring 25 Sq.yds in the same locality at a pre-determined rate. c. Category C: Those who have come between 1960 to 1980 will be provided plots measuring 25 Sq. yds. Plot at market rate. 5. The following w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aded to category-A could not be acceded due to the lack of proof that he had been squatting there prior to 1950. On the contrary, supposedly the Committee had concluded that the land was occupied only in 1952. 11. It appears that sometime around 1990, a Committee was constituted to evaluate the claims of squatters of Block 8-A, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. This Committee went through the claims of various individuals to decide whether the documentary evidence adduced by them sufficed to be placed under Category-A of the Scheme. The case of Lajwanti, i.e the wife of Ram Dass, was placed before this Committee. She appeared before it and furnished documents such as copy of payment receipt in support of the refugee status, DIT Notice issued in favor of issued in the name of her husband, which proved her refugee status. The Committee adopted a lenient approach in certain cases, including that of Lajwanti, and recorded a finding in favor of Lajwanti. Hence, at this point, Madan Lal's mother had already been awarded the benefit of the scheme. 12. Individuals who found their claims to be rejected by the Committee filed suits before various District Courts across Delhi. Due to the volume of cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riteria under Category-A of the Scheme. 19. Even on this instance, the Director (Lands) of the Appellant rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 1. The Director (Lands) stated that the ration card was not legible. Further, the ration card No. registered with the department was recorded as AJ-341450, while the one submitted by the Respondent No. 1 here bore the No. 141590. Hence, due to this discrepancy in the number of the ration card, the genuineness of the same was in doubt. It was further observed that Respondent No. 1's husband's name did not appear in the relevant voter list, which would have indicated that he was staying there prior to 1950. Late Shri Madan Lal's death certificate coupled with the Survey lists also did not allude to the fact that Shri Madan Lal resided in 8A/T-5335, against which he was seeking benefit. On the basis of this, the Director (Lands) vide Order dated 24.02.2014 held that it could not conclusively be shown that Late Shri Madan Lal was in occupation of the site before 1950. The Director (Lands) also recorded that Ram Dass had already availed of the benefit under the Scheme. 20. It was against the above-mentioned Order dated 24.02.2014, that WP(C)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that he had occupied the hutment prior to 15.08.1950 had been rejected. 21. The LPA before this Court has been filed assailing the Impugned Judgment. 22. Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Advocate for the Petitioner has, in sum and substance, argued that the Ld. Single Judge has adjudicated on disputed question of fact, which could only have been decided in a Civil Suit. Further, it has been argued that the Ld. Single Judge has reached the conclusion by relying upon documents, the genuineness of which is questionable. It has also been argued that the Ld. Single has wrongly applied the standard of preponderance of probabilities to decide the questions in the Writ Petition. 23. Per contra, the counsel for the Respondents, in defending the propriety of the Impugned Judgment, has placed reliance upon extensive documentary evidence to show that the Respondents had a claim under category-A of the Scheme. 24. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner and Respondents and perused the material on record. 25. It is evident that before the filing of WP(C) No. 925/2015, the claim of the Respondent No. 1 was adjudged by the Director (Lands) twice. On these occasions, the Director (Lands) did not find the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngle Judge ought not to have revisited them, especially after concurrent findings had been rendered by the statutory authority, i.e the Director (Lands). Considering the expanse of the questions of fact, this Court is of the opinion that the claims of the Respondents were best adjudged by leading detailed evidence before an appropriate Civil Court. 30. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swetambar Sthanakwasi Jain Samiti v. Alleged Committee of Management Sri R.J.I. College, Agra, (1996) 3 SCC 11, has observed as under: - "We are of the view that the High Court not only fell into patent error but also exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not confined to issuing the prerogative writs, there is a consensus of opinion that the High Court will not permit this extraordinary jurisdiction to be converted into a civil court under the ordinary law...Where the civil court has the jurisdiction to try a suit, the High Court cannot convert itself into an appellate or revisional court and interfere with the interim/miscellaneous orders of the civil court. The writ j....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to have a right under the Scheme. The learned Single Judge has, in fact, cast a reverse burden on the DDA to show how the Respondents are entitled to the benefit of the Scheme while the burden is on the Respondents to demonstrate that they are entitled to the benefit that has been given to the persons falling in Category A. 35. Furthermore, the DDA was benevolent enough to give a plot to the father-in-law of the Respondent No. 1, i.e Late Shri Ram Dass, under Category-A of the Scheme previously as well.This benevolence, under Category B, has also been extended to Madan Lal and the Respondents herein for the sole reason that the DDA had demanded 'damages', and that Madan Lal had paid such damages to the tune of Rs. 212.10 for occupying the said site. In fact, in the form submitted to the DDA back in 1968, Madan Lal had himself stated that he had started paying such damages from 1952. Hence, there exists nothing on record to indicate conclusively that Madan Lal had been residing on the site prior to 1950. The suggestion that Madan Lal ought to be granted the benefit under Category-B does not establish any right to claim benefit under Category-A, as suggested by the Ld. Single Judge....