Mere Govt Recommendation Doesn't Entitle Individual To Claim DDA Plot In Area Of Choice, Allotment Subject To Availability: Delhi High Court

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma was considering the petitioner's prayer for allotment of land measuring 400 square yards, based on the recommendation letter of the Land and Building Department.

The facts of the case are that land belonging to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in Nangli Jalib village, New Delhi came to be acquired. The predecessor-in-interest applied for allotment of the alternative plot. However, he passed away when his application was pending. In its recommendation letter dated 03.10.2017, the Land and Building Department had written to the Commissioner (Land) of DDA to allot land measuring 400 square yards to the petitioner, in view of the acquisition of land in Nangli Jalib village.

The petitioner was allotted an alternate plot in Dwarka by the DDA. However, his grievance is that the land allotted to him is not 400 square yards. He claims that the DDA is legally bound to provide him an alternative allotment of land measuring 400 square yards.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the DDA is under an obligation to provide an alternative plot of land to him in view of the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, particularly Rule 6, which provides for allotment of Nazul land by the DDA at pre-determined rates. It was contended that the DDA failed to carve the required size of land for him in Dwarka or any other place if there was no availability in Dwarka.

On the other hand, DDA's counsel contended that the recommendation letter dated 03.10.2017 did not create any legal obligation on it to allot an alternative plot of land to the petitioner. It was contended that the plot at Dwarka could be allotted to the petitioner as the plots were fully and had have a high premium.

The High Court referred to the case of Ramanand v. Union of India & Ors, 1993, where the Full Bench of Delhi High Court decided whether a person whose land has been acquired by DDA had a vested right to allotment of an alternative plot of land for residential purposes. The Court held that the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and Nazul Rules do not provide any right to individuals to seek alternate accommodation on nazul and other lands.

Referring to this judgment, the High Court observed that “In conclusion, it was held that a mere recommendation by the Delhi Administration for allotment to any person does not carry any legal commitment for allotment of the alternate plot. Thus, applying the same analogy in the present matter, the reliance by the petitioner placed on the letter dated 03.10.2017 is only recommendary in nature and it does not create any legal right in favour of the petitioner.”

It further referred to the Supreme Court case of Amolak Raj v. Union of India (JT 2002 (10) SC 86), where the Apex Court confirmed that an individual cannot claim allotment of a land of his choice as a right under the Nazul Rules. It was observed that even if there were any recommendations made by a government authority for the allotment of land, it would be subject to the availability of plot with the DDA.

The High Court thus held that the petitioner cannot seek an alternate plot of land as a right. It stated “In the final analysis, the petitioner is not entitled to alternate plot of land for residential purposes. Indeed, he was eligible for allotment of a plot, subject to certain conditions; however, there is no accrued right to the allotment of an alternate plot for residential purposes”

The Court thus dismissed the petition.

Case title: Shri Rashter Kumar vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. (W.P.(C) 10989/2017 & CM APPL. 24658/2018)