JUDGMENT
Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the Order dated 15.05.2003.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. It is stated in para 2 of the writ petition that the petitioner father Sh. Sardari Lal was a registered displaced person from West Pakistan who migrated to India in October 1947. Sardari Lal and his brother Milkhi Ram Ohri are said to have jointly bid in the public auction held on 14.09.1960 for the sale of evacuee land bearing Khasra No.2077/386, measuring 6 bighas 9 biswas in the revenue estate of village Khirkee, Delhi.
4. It is alleged in Para 4 of the writ petition that prior to the confirmation of the sale and before the delivery of possession the above land had been notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.08.1962.
5. It is further alleged in para 5 that before confirmation of the sale both the bidders requested in writing to the competent authority of Rehabilitation Department to issue the Sale Certificate in their joint names.
6. However, it is alleged while both the bidders were given physical possession on 22.01.1963, but the certificate was prepared in the name of Milkhi Ram Ohri only.
7. The said land was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act vide Award No.1582 dated 06.06.1963 for planned development of Delhi and possession was taken. It is alleged in Para 7 that the petitioner father was entitled to get compensation under the Award and the matter went to the Addl. Distt. Judge for adjudication vide Land Acquisition Case No.737/64 which was decided by the learned Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi on 05.11.1966. The learned Addl. Distt. Judge held both the bidders as co-owners and found both the claimants entitled to Rs.7417/50 vide Annexure P1 to the writ petition.
8. The appeal of the Administration to the High Court failed and thereafter the Land Acquisition Collector forwarded and recommended the application of Sardari Lal dated 15.06.63 and Milkhi Ram Ohri to the Deputy Housing Commissioner for alternative plots. Milkhi Ram Ohri was denied a plot because he had a residential plot in Delhi. However, no plot was allotted to the petitioner father who died in 1995. Ultimately, by Order dated 26.04.1999 vide Annexure P-6, the petitioner prayer was rejected and hence he filed the writ petition which has been allowed.
9. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent in the writ petition, in para 5 of the same, it is stated that the Sale Certificate was admittedly issued in favor of Milkhi Ram alone. The name of the petitioner father before was not mentioned in the said Sale Certificate. Hence it is alleged that the question of petitioner father acquiring any right from such Sale Certificate does not arise. It is further stated that the name of the petitioner father was not recorded in the Revenue record on the date of issuance of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. As per the own showing of the petitioner, provisional possession of the land was given after the date of the section 4 Notification. The name of the petitioner or his father was not mutated in the Revenue record. Merely because he has received compensation does not mean that he is the owner of the land. Under the Land Acquisition Act, a person can get compensation on merely having an interest in the land, and even a tenant is entitled to get compensation. However, under the policy of the Government alternative plot can be given only to owner of the land in question. The petitioner has failed to prove that he is the owner and has not furnished mutation certificate in his favor. Hence the respondent vide letter dated 26.04.1999 communicated to the petitioner that his claim for alternative plot has been rejected as the petitioner has not satisfied the provisions of the scheme. It is stated that the petitioner or his father was not the owner of the land on the date of the Section 4 notification.
10. It has been held by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Ramanand v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1994 Del 29, that a person has no right to claim an alternative plot. The claim of alternative plot can be considered only in accordance with the scheme, but, we are of the opinion that the petitioner claim does not fall within the scheme as he has not been able to show that he is the owner of the land in question.
11. On the facts of the case, in our opinion, this appeal deserves to be allowed. The sale deed was in favor of only Milkhi Ram and Sardari Lal. Neither Sardari Lal name nor that of the petitioner was mutated over the land in question, and hence petitioner has not been able to prove that he or his father were the owner/co-owner of the said land. In the auction held by the Rehabilitation Department for auction of land bearing Khasra No.2077/386, measuring 6 bighas 9 biswas in the revenue estate of village Khirkee, Delhi, only Milkhi Ram bid was accepted, and there is no evidence that the father of the petitioner had participated in the said bid. Certificate was issued in favor of Milkhi Ram and the request of father of the petitioner was not accepted by the Ministry. Hence we are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment.
12. Even assuming that Milkhi Ram executed the sale deed in favor of the father of the petitioner whereby he gave 50% of his share to the latter, this only shows that the father of the petitioner acquired the said land after the Section 4 notification. Milkhi Ram request for alternative plot was rejected as he was having a residential plot in Delhi. The petitioner request was rejected as he failed to prove that he or his father were owner/co-owner of the land in question. Thus, the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained.
13. In view of the above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside.