- (1.) This is a review application by the petitioner Mrs. Har Kiran Commar. She is the sister of Gurdip Singh Uban who had also filed a review application earlier and whose review application was dismissed and who had thereafter filed other I. As. The I. As filed by Gurdip Singh Uban were disposed of by an elaborate judgment of this Court on 18th August, 2000 (Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban) reported in (2000) 9 JT (SC) 245 : (2000 AIR SCW 4180). Gurdip Singh Uban was given some limited relief only on the concession of the respondents. In the present application filed by the petitioner it is contended by learned senior counsel, Dr. Abhishek Singhvi, that this case is no different from that of petitioner's brother and, therefore, a similar relief is to be given.
(2.) We have heard learned Solicitor General of India in reply. While disposing of the case of the petitioner's brother on 18th August, 2000 this Court made reference to a letter of the Joint Director dated 6-2-96 (F 9 (2) 90/crc/south/s-7) which read as follows : "Acquisition proceedings/notification has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in case of Shri B. R. Gupta and Ors. You are, therefore, requested to kindly approach the MCD for approval of the building plans and ADM (R) for getting N. O. C. for construction on the said land. "that would mean that apart from stating that the land acquisition proceedings stood quashed, there was a further statement that Mr. Gurdip Singh Uban could go in for further construction.
(3.) On the basis of the said letter of the Joint Director it was contended by Shri Gurdip Singh Uban in his I. As. that inasmuch as he has made further construction pursuant to the permission granted by the Joint Director allowing him to approach the M. C. D. with his plans, he had made further construction and, therefore, it would not be equitable to allow the land acquisition to go on in respect of this property. He, therefore, sought permission to file an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. In response to this submission learned Solicitor General of India filed written submission as follows (as recorded in the judgment dated 18th August, 2000) (reported in 2000 AIR SCW 4180) : "In a case where the Joint Director (New. Lease) of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has expressly represented that the proceedings stand quashed, then the Government would consider the question of de-notification under Section 48 provided : (a) The applicant who has constructed upon the land is the original owner and was the owner prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4. It is made expressly clear that even those transferees who have acquired the land with permissions/nocs under the Delhi Land (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972 are not covered by this. (b) The construction has been made after obtaining the approval of the MCD for the building plans. (c) The constructions as exists is in strict compliance with the sanctioned plans and does not exceed the maximum built up area permissible in respect of farm houses which is the applicable norm under the Building by-laws. (d) The extent of reacquisition would be in the discretion of the Govt. (e) If compensation has not been paid. ";