Yashdeep Singh Saini Vs Naya Raipur Development Authority (Chhattisgarh High Court)
At the first instance, it will show that the petitioners’ land were acquired by the respondents. It has to be born in mind that the said acquisition was not as like of a general contract of a sale & purchase on free will of the parties or was acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 The sale deed contains the fact that in lieu of special amount (Visesh Anugrah Rashi) the right was given to claim for the plot. Pursuant to such right given, the application was filed by the petitioner for plot. The petitioners initially claimed on the basis of documents of allotment Annexure P-4 & Annexure P-5 filed with this petition. In the initial reply, the NRDA contended that those documents have no authenticity. Such submission was also made at the bar. The documents filed by way of rejoinder, which were obtained under the Right to Information Act, would show that conscious decision was taken to allot the land of particular dimensions to the petitioners and letters were also issued. Subsequently, the respondents withdrew from their promise and reduced the area of the plot on the ground that it would be against the policy of rehabilitation. The rehabilitation policy on which the respondents relies upon would be an internal policy of the respondents which cannot be made applicable to have a statutory force over the petitioners and they have no nexus to such policy or have ever agreed to such policy. The note sheet filed in this case would show that after series of discussion and after taking input from the various corners of the Department, NRDA agreed to allot the land of greater dimensions initially and the letters were also issued. Subsequently, all of a sudden, took a somer-sault and reduced the area, therefore, the act of the respondents would be arrested on the principles of promissory estoppel and would be in ambit of judicial review on the concept of use of unfettered discretion. Therefore, it would not be equitable to allow to NRDA to come out of the promise to reduce the entitled land which was agreed to be given to the petitioners.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
1. Both the writ petitions are being heard together being common question of facts and law are involved.
2. (A). The Writ Petition No.2432 of 2017 is preferred by two petitioners namely Yashdeep Singh Saini & Amandeep Singh Saini. It is their case that the petitioners were the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.587 (Part) admeasuring 0.480 hectare situated at Village Jhakhi, P.C. No.139, R.I.Circle Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur. The land of the petitioners alongwith other land owners were acquired under the Settlement Case No.6-1638/Land Acquisition/ 2010 and compensation amount of Rs.9,00,000/-was paid in the year 2010. Likewise, land bearing Khasra No.585 area 420 hectareof petitioners was acquired under the Case No.6-9098/Land Acquisition/2012 and compensation of Rs.7,87,500/- was paid on 27.02.2013. It is stated that to facilitate such acquisition process, the written assurance was given under Clause 19 of the scheme to give additional plots titled as “Special Rehabilitation Scheme for Naya Raipur Project”. According to the petitioners, as per Clause 19(3) of the Special Rehabilitation Scheme for Naya Raipur Project, the person who have not obtained additional compensation, he would be entitled for plot of land; therefore the project affected person who had not accepted additional amount and consented to get plot of land was to be provided with plot of land according to different classification. The case of the petitioners that they were entitled for two plots of land of 3600 sq.ft. each.
(B). The petitioners further contended that the sale deed was registered under the mutual settlement basis on the solemn promises of the respondents to get the additional plots the sale deed were executed, but the plots were not given. The petitioners contended that on a much lower price the sale of land of petitioners was made with promises to get another plot. It is stated that after severe persuasion, the respondent State Authorities were called upon the petitioners and after series of sitting, the respondents had finally alloted the plot No. 3A & 3B of 3600 sq.ft. area each to the petitioners along with the location map of Bhelwadih (Mudapaar). As per the allotment, the petitioners appeared before the authorities so that conveyance deed may be executed in their favour and possession may be allotted to them. The petitioner contends that eventually the possession of plots were not given to them. The petitioners further contents that they were entitled for two plots which were allotted to them by letter dated 6/2-3/2017 i.e. plot No.3A & 3B of 3600 sq.ft. each, however, all of a sudden, by the order dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) the area of plots were reduced and both the petitioners were given the plot No.3 admeasuring 5400 sq.ft. for horticulture.
3. (A). Likewise in the Writ Petition No. 2477 of 2017 filed by Yashdeep Singh Saini, it is stated that the petitioner was the owner of different lands bearing Khasra No.581 (Part) area 0.010 hectare, Khasra No.583 (Part) area 0.200 hectare, Khasra No.578/1 area 0.580 hectare, Khasra No.580 (Part) area 0.070 hectare, Khasra No.583/1 area 0.080 hectare, Khasra No.581/1 area 0.580 hectare and Khasra No.578/2 area 0.350 hectare, situated at Village Jhakhi, P.C. No.139, R.I.Circle Abhanpur, Tahsil Abhanpur. The said lands were acquired by two different land acquisition case and the compensation amount of Rs.3,93,750/- & 31,12,500/- was paid on 01.10.2010 & 27.02.2013. Further it is contended that to facilitate the acquisition process as per Clause 19 of the Special Rehabilitation Scheme for Naya Raipur Project, the petitioner was held to be entitled for another plot of land under the project since they were covered under Clause 19 of the scheme as project affected persons as they had opted for different plot instead of the additional amount.
(B). The petitioners contended that respondents have accepted the petitioners to be entitlement of plot as though the sale deed was executed but special additional compensation was not given to petitioners. It is contended that according to the policy by letter dated 29.03.2017, the petitioners were alloted two plots i.e. Plot No.3C & 3D of 3600 & 9000 sq.ft. respectively with a location map of Bhelwadih. The petitioners contended that though they appeared before the authorities for further compliance of such allotment to get the relevant conveyance deed but the same was not executed and instead the letter dated 18.08.2017 was issued wherein the petitioner was alloted the plot No.4 admeasuring 9000 sq.ft. for horticulture purpose. Thereby the earlier allotment was amended and reduced area was given. Both the petitioners in this case claims the quashment of the letter dated 18.08.2017 wherein their earlier allotment has been canceled and they were asked to take plot of lesser area, therefore, the dispute.
4. There spondents have filed their reply and contended that Yashdeep Singh Saini & Amandeep Singh Saini had sold land bearing Khasra No. 585 which was admeasuring 0.420 hectare and Khasra No.587 admeasuring 0.480 hectare which makes the total purchase of 0.9 hectare. Likewise the another sale deed made by Yashdeep Singh Saini which was in respect of land bearing Khasra No.581 admeasuring 0.010 hectare and Khasra No.583 (Part) admeasuring 0.200 hectare. Therefore, total 0.210 hectare was purchased by NRDA. It is stated as per Rehabilitation Policy Clause 3.5 to hold a land for horticulture etc., the policy says when the area was from 0.5 to 1 hectare, the person would be entitled for 5400 sq.ft. of additional land. Likewise when the area acquired is 1.5 to 2 hectare, he would be entitled to 9000 sq.ft. of additional land for horticulture. Accordingly, in Writ Petition No.2432 of 2017 since the area of purchase was within the bracket of 0.5 to 1 hectare, therefore as per policy by the letter dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) Yashdeep Singh Saini & Amandeep Singh Saini was allotted Plot No.3 area 5400 sq.ft. Likewise in Writ Petition No.2477 of 2017 filed by Yashdeep Singh since the land was in the bracket of 1.5 to 2 hectare, therefore, by the letter dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P-1) Plot No.4 admeasuring 9000 sq.ft. was alloted to the petitioners. The reply further contents that the document wherein the petitioners have placed their reliance neither has been signed by any person nor the map is authenticated where the claim of the petitioners can be held to be valid or can be said that those allotment letters were issued by NRDA. It is further contended that the allotment of the rehabilitation was made according to the existing policy of the rehabilitation, therefore, the same is well merited.
5. After filing of the return since serious objection raised about the authenticity of allotment letter initially issued, the petitioners filed their rejoinder along with the note sheet and communications of the NRDA.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that NRDA has acquired the land of the petitioners and as per the Rehabilitation Scheme, the same was proceeded and initial allotment of land were made. The counsel would refer the document filed along with the rejoinder and additional return filed by the respondents. It is contended that after due process, the petitioners were alloted the land as they had not obtained the additional amount of rehabilitation. It is stated that despite the land was alloted, the petitioners were not given the possession of that and without giving the possession in order to cancel the allotment, the proceeding started projecting the petitioners have not taken possession of land. He submits that the respondent was under the bounden duty under the promissory estoppel to honour it’s own commitment and cannot resort to their policy which was not a subject issue while initial allotments were made. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the allotment having been made, when the respondents found that the lands falls near the road and would be at prime position, in order to make the allotment to someone else, entire procedure to grant fresh land has been adopted to cause damage to the petitioners.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that after purchase of the land were made as per the Rehabilitation Policy, initially it was found that certain allotment be made. It is further contended that the documents of initial allotment neither bears any seal nor signature of the department so as to show such allotment was actually made. He further submits that the petitioners have failed to prove the fact that allotments were made in their favour of the nature as claimed. It is submitted that as per the Rehabilitation Policy of the respondents, the petitioners were given 5400 sq.ft. and 9000 sq.ft. of land respectively. He further submits the said allotment of land was over and above the sale consideration as received by the petitioners. It is further contended that according to the policy of the NRDA, the criteria for providing additional land for gardening, horticulture in addition to payment of compensation depends upon the area of the land acquired.
8. It is stated in the present case, one acquisition falls in the bracket of 1 hectare and another is in the bracket of 2 hectares. Therefore, 5400 sq.ft & 9000 sq.ft of additional land, as the petitioners were entitled were given to them. He further submits that under the circumstances, the allotment of land has been made according to the entitlement of the petitioners; whereas they are claiming over & above to their entitlement and against the rehabilitation policy. He submits in the facts of the case, Annexure P-1, in both the cases, the allotment of land would be justified.
9. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents.
10. This is an admitted position that the petitioners’ land which are situated at village Jhanki have been acquired by the respondents. In both the cases, there are four sale deeds on record.
In WPC No.2432 of 2017 the sale deeds are as under :
A. Seller : (1) Yashdeep Singh
(2) Amandeep Singh
Purchaser : Naya Raipur Development Authority
Property : Khasra No. 585, Ameasuring 0.420
Hectare at Village Jhaki
Sale Consideration : Rs. 7,87,500/-
B. Seller : (1) Yashdeep Singh
(2) Amandeep Singh
Purchaser : Naya Raipur Development Authority
Property : Khasra No. 587 Admeasuring 0.480
Hectare at Village Jhaki.
Sale Consideration : Rs. 9,00,000/-
In WPC No.2477 of 2017 the sale deeds are as under :
A. Seller : Yashdeep Singh
Purchaser : Naya Raipur Development Authority
Property : Khasra No. 581 (Part), Admeasuring
0.010 Hectare at Village Jhanki
Khasra No. 583 (Part), Admeasuring
0.200 Hectare at Village Jhanki
Sale consideration : Rs. 3,93,750/-.
B. Seller : Yashdeep Singh
Purchaser : Naya Raipur Development Authority
Property : Khasra No.578/1 Admeasuring 0.580 Hectare
Khasra No.580/1 Admeasuring 0.070 Hectare
Khasra No.581/1 Admeasuring 0.580 Hectare
Khasra No.583/1 Admeasuring 0.080 Hectare
Khasra No.578/2 Admeasuring 0.350 Hectare
at Village Jhaki
Sale Consideration : Rs.31,12,500/-
11. The petitioners claimed that as per the Special Rehabilitation Scheme for Naya Raipur Project, the petitioners were under the project affected person and therefore the respondents by a letter dated 6/2-3/2017 on 29.03.2017 alloted Plot No.3-c to Yashdeep Singh of 3600 sq.ft, Plot No.3-d to Yashdeep Singh of 9000 sq.ft., Plot No.3-a to Yashdeep Singh & Amandeep Singh of 3600 sq.ft. and Plot No.3-b to Yashdeep Singh & Amandeep Singh of 3600 sq.ft. The particulars of the same have been filed as Annexure P-5 and the list from serial No.6 to 9 are reproduced herein under :
The map of the said location was also attached.
12. In reply to such averments, the respondent NRDA contended that the petitioners were claiming larger piece of land as compared to one alloted to them vide Annexure P-1. With respect to the reply to Annexure P-5 wherein the petitioners claim that was the allotment, NRDA replied that it has no bearing with the case, as it has neither an agreement nor an undertaking executed between the parties. Further, during the argument, it was also contended that the document of allotment wherein the petitioners placed reliance has no bearing as it neither bears the signature nor any seal of the NRDA.
13. In reply to the return, a rejoinder was filed by the petitioners wherein the petitioners contended that allotment was made after due process by the office of NRDA. The documents were placed along with rejoinder. The series of official note sheet were placed before the Court which were obtained under the Right to Information Act. The said documents have been placed as Annexure P-10, which is issued from the office of NRDA under the Right to Information Act. The official note sheet would go to show that certain lands were acquired by purchase and instead of additional the affected person who opted for additional land the petitioners were found to be eligible for certain area. The petitioners were found to be given benefit of rehabilitation as they were covered under the rehabilitation scheme. The official note sheet of 26.11.2016 shows the process was started to assess the entitlement of quantum of land of the petitioners as policy agenda for effective review and opinions were called for and considering the different corners of office according to the note sheet as per the respondents, the petitioners were found to be entitlement of the land as per Annexure P-5 for larger good. Therefore by official note sheet of 06.03.2017, it was decided to give land to the petitioners as per the lay out map and they were directed to be noticed. The official note sheet of 09.03.2017 would show that the petitioners having been invited to inspect the plots, they subsequently inspected the plot in question physically and agreed to it, as shelter for reality victim. The official note sheets therefore would show that as per the decision arrived at after series of deliberations and after obtaining opinion from the various corners of the Department on 29.03.2017, it was decided to grant the land.
14. The official note sheet dated 29.03.2017 fortifies those facts, therefore, it would show that the NRDA itself had promised according to the rehabilitation program to grant the land as per Annexure P-5 aforesaid. On 03.04.2017 the following official note sheet was drawn, which would be relevant and is reproduced as under :
