Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar' learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.D. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel.
By means of this petition, petitioners have prayed for following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties no. 1 to 3 not allot the residential plot under the Scheme-2011(Naveen Okhla Audhoygik Vikas Pradhikaran Awasiya Bhukhand Yojna- 2011(01) in favour of the opposite party no. 4 without creating the right and interest of the petitioners in the said residential plot;
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties nos. 1 to 3 to act in accordance with law and not to deprive the petitioners by allotting the residential plot under the Scheme-2011(Naveen Okhla Audhyogik Vikas Pradhikaran Awasiya Bhukhand Yojna-2011 (01) ) in favour of the opposite party no.4 by depriving the petitioners from their right and interest in the said residential plot; and
(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the facts and circumstances of the case."
Petitioners' case is that petitioners as well as respondent no.4 are sons of the late Dhanni Singh, who was original tenure holder of certain plots mentioned in paragraph-2 of the writ petition. The land of late Dhanni Singh was acquired by the respondents. The compensation was paid to the tenure holder in the year 1996. The Noida Authority had floated a scheme, namely, Naveen Okhla Audhyogik Vikas Pradhikaran Awasiya Bhukhand Yojna-2011 (01) for the allotment of the residential plots to the villagers, whose land had been acquired by the Noida Authority. Petitioners' case is that under the scheme -2011(01) in case of death of original tenure holder one of the legal heirs of the agriculturist can be allotted residential plot. Under the Scheme-2011(01) if there are many co-tenure holders the land would be allotted to one of the co-tenure holder and the selection of the said tenure holder would be made through process of draw among the co-tenure holders. The draw was drawn in which respondent no.4 was allotted residential plot.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no dispute with regard to the scheme in which only one of the legal heirs of the agriculturist whose land has been acquired should be allotted residential plot. He further submits that petitioners have no objection that under the Scheme-2011(01) if the plot is allotted to one of the legal heir but in the said allotment the rights and interest of other heirs should also be created, but as per Scheme-2011 (01) once the plot has been allotted to one of the legal heir then automatically the other legal heirs of original tenure holder would be deprived of any right and interest in the said residential plot. He submits that non-allotment of the residential plot to the petitioners violates the provision of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Shri Ramendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 2 and 3, refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that Scheme-2011(01) contemplated allotment of residential plot to one of the legal heirs and in case more than one heir moved application for allotment of residential plot the name is to be decided by draw among the co-tenure holders. He further submits that a Division Bench in Writ petition no.55845 of 2009, Mr. Puran Singh & Another v. State of U.P. and another decided on 19.12.2011 has held that in the residential Scheme floated by the respondents only one legal heir is entitled for allotment of residential plot.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Petitioners and respondent no.4 both are sons of late Dhanni Singh who was original tenure holder. Under the Scheme 2011 (01) Clause 4 and 5 are as below:-
"4- 1382 Qlyh esa ntZ [kkrsnkj ds e`rd gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa rFkk mldh Hkwfe vftZr gksus ds le; ;fn mlds ,d ls vf/kd mRrjkf/kdkjh jktLo vfHkys[kks esa vafdr Fks rks muesa ls dsoy ,d mRrjkf/kdkjh gh Hkw[k.M izkIr djus gsrq vgZ gksaxkA 5- xzkeh.k Js.kh ds [kkrs ds leLr [kkrsnkj ftUgs iwoZ esa Hkw[[email protected] vkoaVu ugh gqvk gS] vkosnu gsrq vgZ gksaxsA ,d [kkrs ds lkis{k ,d ls vf/kd lg[kkrsnkjksa }kjk vkosnu djus dh fLFkfr esa izkf/kdj.k Lrj ij lg [kkrsnkjksa ds chp Mªk ds ek/;e ls Hkw[k.M vkoaVu gsrq ,d [kkrsnkj dk p;u fd;k tk;sxkA""
The tenure holder, whose land has been acquired, is entitled for compensation. In case the original tenure holder died before receiving the compensation all the legal heirs are entitled for compensation. The allotment of residential plot under the scheme floated by the Noida Authority gives an additional benefit to the agriculturist, whose land has been acquired, and in case of death of original tenure holder one of the legal heirs of the agriculturist can be allotted residential plot. Under the Scheme-2011(01) if there are many co-tenure holders the land would be allotted to one of the co-tenure holder and the selection of the said tenure holder would be made through process of draw among the co-tenure holders. The Scheme floated by the Noida Authority to allot the land to one of the tenure holder only came for consideration in case of Mr. Puran Singh and another (Supra) and received approval by the Division Bench, which held that :-
"The question for consideration is as to whether the allotment of residential plot is permissible to more than one heir of deceased tenure holder and the restriction is only confined to a particular scheme or allotment made in any earlier scheme is also a disqualification to apply in any subsequent scheme. The relevant clauses of 2004(1) Scheme, which have already been quoted above, clearly provided that in case where original tenure holder whose land had been acquired, has expired only one heir of such person shall be eligible to apply and seek allotment of a residential plot in this scheme. The sub-clauses (v) and (ix) of Clause (D) of 2004(1) Scheme, as quoted above, clearly contemplated that only one of the legal heirs of deceased tenure holder is entitled for allotment. There cannot be any dispute that if a tenure holder whose land has been acquired, has already been allotted a plot then his heirs shall have no entitlement to apply under the villager category. The question is that if a tenure holder has more than one heir, whether they can apply in each successive scheme with rider that only one of the heirs will be allotted plot under one scheme. The purpose and object for allotting a residential plot is to benefit the tenure holder whose land has been acquired. Land of large number of tenure holders have been acquired under various land acquisition proceedings. There is a clear provision that if there are more than one co-tenure holder against one Khata or plot only one of the co-tenure holder shall be eligible for allotment. The purpose is to benefit more and more tenure holders whose land has been acquired. In case interpretation is made that each heir shall be entitled to apply in different schemes disregarding the factum of allotment to any of heirs earlier, there shall be reservation for a category i.e. category of heirs of the deceased tenure holder who shall be permanent body claiming benefit in all subsequent schemes. Further the fact that one tenure holder has more than one heir, the factum that a tenure holder has one heir or several heirs shall have effect on the schemes floated by the Authority. Taking example that a tenure holder has ten heirs, his each heir shall have chance in ten future schemes even if in each scheme only one is entitled for allotment affecting the chances of other tenure holders whose land has been acquired, in future scheme. The interpretation which is put by the NOIDA and the policy which is being pursued from 2004 onwards is in consonance with the equity and cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable."
The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that clause-4 of the scheme which provides for allotment of only one of the legal heirs is arbitrary and denies right of other heirs. It is submitted that in event allotment is made in favour of one of the heir of agriculturist rights in said allotted plots be given to all the heirs. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that non-giving of rights to other heirs violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
A perusal of the clause-4 of the scheme indicates that in case there are more than one heirs recoded in revenue records of deceased tenure holder only one of the heirs of the tenure holder shall be entitled for allotment. Clause -5 further provides that all the co-tenure holders shall be entitled to make application and in event more than one co-tenure holders have made application selection of only one co-tenure holder shall be made by the draw drawn by the authorities. The above clause clearly gives right to all the co-tenure holder/heirs to apply for allotment. In the present case petitioners as well as respondent no.4 have applied for allotment under the Scheme-2011. In a draw every applicant who participated in the draw has equal chance of success. The petitioners were also permitted to participate in draw, they can not complaint of any arbitrariness or discrimination. Petitioners had equal chance for allotment in draw and mere fact that draw went in favour of respondent no..4 cannot be said that petitioner s have been deprived of their right. Thus the submission of the petitioner that clause -4 of the scheme is arbitrary cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioners lastly contended that selection by a draw may be permissible amongst the strangers who are not related to each other but selection by draw amongst the co-tenure holders who have equal rights is not permissible. The draw of lot for allotment of residential plot is an accepted mode for allotment adopted by different local authorities including the respondent authorities. The same policy and procedure is pursued by the respondent authorities in making allotment of residential plots amongst co-tenure holders, no foundation has been laid in the petition as to why selection of one of legal heirs of deceased by draw of lots is impermissible.
We do not find any infirmity in the policy and scheme which is uniformly applied by the authorities in selecting one of the co-tenure holders or one of the legal heirs of the deceased for allotment of residential plots.
None of the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any substance. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief in writ petition.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
9.1.2012 Aks.