Mahender Kumar v. DDA

Judgment dated 05.1 0.2012 MAIIITNDHI{ KIJMAR ..... Pctitioncr 'Ihrough : Mr.It.K. Saini, Adv. VCTSLIS DDA .... . I{csp<lrrdcrrt Ms.Manika I'ripatlii Panclcy and Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik. Aclvs. 'Ihrough': COII.AM: IX"ON'|}L lil Mll. J[iSTIC.F], G.S.SIS'['ANI G. S. SIS'I'ANI. .tr (Oft,4/.) i. IluJc. With thc conscnt ol connscl for the partics, writ potitioir is sct ciov.,n lbr llnal hcaring and dispos;rl.

¶2l)rcscnt pctition has bccn filcd by petitioner undcr Articlc 226 ol the Constitution of India u,ith thc following praycrs: I I i I I II \,i>,'Lfi II I !

(o)

(b) it'.t,.(t.) so6/zo t2 A r,vrit of certiolari callinp. for thc rccorcls of tbe casc for pcrusal. A writ ol'ccrtiorali quashing tire action on tlrc part of thc DI)A in dcpriving thc Pctitioncr of thc allotmont of an altenrativc plot (in licu of' acquisition of' Jris agricultural land), by cancclling thc allotmcnt mado to hjrn otr l.liild and final chancc of cl'roncous, unal.aiiablc anci Lrntcnablc grouncls ancl thcn rcfusing to rcstole thc samc, bcing illcgal, arbitrary, unjust, un\ /arrantod, without jurisdictioti arrcl in violation of thc Itulcs, Itcgulations and l'olicy anci principlos oI eqr:ily, justicc, good conscicncc; Pngc I of'll) A Writ of Mandamus commanding the I{espondent to forthwith make allotment of an alternativc plot of 250 sc1. yds. jn a dcveloped Sector in Rohini to thc Petitioner, towards Lhird chance for allotrnent, at the ratcs of 2011-2012 and adjust thc amourts already paid by thc Pctitioncr with interest thcrcupon, towards premium of thc plot and give him posscssion and execute lease deed in rcspccl thereof in favour of the petitioner.

¶3Plcadings in this matter are complete.

¶4'l'hc nccessary facts, to bc noticed for disposal of thc prcscnt writ pctition, arc that aglicultural land rncasuringT.I3 bighas in Village Nimali, Dclhi, clwncd by thc pctitioncr, was acquired undcr thc Schcrne of Large Scale Accluisition, I)ovcloprncnt and Disposal of f,and in Dclhi, 196I. Award No.2045 was rnade on 16.12.1967 .

¶5'I'ir" narnc of thc petitioner was recommcndcd by thc Lancl and Building I)cparlmcnt, Govcrnment of NCI of Delhi, to thc DDA for allotrnent of an altcrnatc plot of land in favour of the petitioncr, rncasuring 250 sq. ycls., viclc lctlcr datcd 22.6.19t18. As per the petition, in vicw of thc Pollcy oJ-the DDn, such rccomrnendccs wcrc given thrcc clrances towards allotmcnt of an altcrnative plot. In thc ycar 1993, DDA allotled a plot mcasuring250 sq. yds. in Narela to thc pctitioncr. Pctitioner deposited the first instalhnent of 1ts.52,303/- on 24.2.1993, howcveL, he made a rcquest to thc DDn for canccllation of the said plot as hc found that thc area was not suitable.

¶6In tho ycar 2000, the petitioner was allottcd anothcr plot by thc DDA in Itohini. Thc pctitioncr dcpositcd the first instalhnent of Rs.i,83,4461-wrth rcspcct to thc said plot with thc DDn on 1.9.2000, but on account of thc location of thc plot, which was not suitablc to thc pctitioncr, thc pctitioner prayed to the DDA for canccllation of the said plot. (") ) f rf tY.P.(C) 80(,/20t2 I'age 2 of I0 ) f \?

¶7On 4,4.2002 anothcr plol rvas allottcd by tho DDA [o thc pctitioncr in Sector 20 I{ohini, I)cllri, mcasuling 200 sc1. mts. As pcr thc pctition, although a clemand-cuur-arllotrncnl lctlct was not rcccivccl by thc lrctiticxrcr', pctitioncr lcccivcd a show callso noticc datcd 26.8.2002 l}orn thc I)l)A on aciount sll'tho lact thal ilrc pctitioncl hacl not nraclc thc payrncirt to tlrc I)Dn rvith rcspcct to thc plot allollcd to thc pctitioncr. Ily thc saict show causc nclticc: tlrc pctitionor was also cautionccl that" in casc no satisl'actory rcply is reccivcd liom the pctitioner, thc aJlotrncnt macic in his lilvour would bc cancellccl withclut any furthcr opportunity. 't'he pctitioncr vidc comnurrication ctatccl 9.9.2002 rcpliccl to Lhc show causc notici issuccl by thc I)T)n. ln 1.ho saicl rcply, thc petitioncr, r.vhilc stating lhat hc hacl not rcccivcd thc clernand-cum-allotrncnt letLcr, pointecl out thdl thc arnount o{ dcmancl, as statod in the show calrsc noticc dalcd 26.11.2042, was lbr in cxcess; thc dcrlrand scl raiscd should bc rcviscd; and tlrc atlclunt alrcady clcpositcd torvarcis carlicr allotrncnt i.c. I{s.1,83,4/+61-in thc ycar 2000 bo zidjustecl. Sincc no rcsponsc was roccived by thc pctitioncr, thc pctitioncr sent a lcrnindcr to thc DI)n on 24.10.2012, whsiciri hc lcitcratcd his carlicr stancl but also incnlionccl that lrc hacl not rcccivcd tlic denrand lctlcr.'i'hclcalicr various conrmunications wcfc cxchangccl bctwccn thc pctitionor anti rhe lespondcnt. liinally jlOn issr"rccl a cornurunication datccl 18.12.2003 to the pctiticlncr informing him of tltc canccllation of thc aliotiiront uraclc in his i'avour. tt. Lcarncd counscl for 1hc pcl"itioncr submits that being aggricvcd by thc conrmunication datcd i8.12.2003 issr-rcd try thc DI)n to tlrc pctitioncr whcrcby thc allotmr:rrl iriacic by I)I),,\ in lnvour of pcritioner was cancollccl, thc pctitionci rnaclc a rcprcsontation to tlrc Lio,-rtcnaut (iovernor ot-I)clhi on I4.2.20A4, inter uliu., i,vith a pra).cr to allo1 an altcrnatc plot bcaling no.72, Pockct I(r, Iicctor 20, ltohini ltcsiclcntial Schcnrcr._'l"hc \a fl|t'.(() 806,/20t2 l>oge 3 o.l' l(l t I f. pctitioncr alscl prayccl that lcttcr datccl )9.12.2002, whcrcby tlrc rccittcst of thc pctitior"rcr ltlr allotment of an altcrnatc plot in Shalirnar Ilagh or I)itampura was not accedecl to by thc DDn, bc withclrawn. Copy o[ thc replcscntation clatecl 14.02.2004.has bcen lllc<I along witli thc pctition. Anothcr rcprcscnlation \ /as nradc by thc pctitioncr to thc I)DA. In rcspollsc to thc rcprcscntaLion rnadc to thc DDA, thc petitioner rcccjvccl a cornmnnication,li'om thc DDA inlbrming hirn that his rcclucst had becn cclnsidcrcd but thc samc could not bc acccclcd to.

¶9Lcarncd counsel (<lr thc pctitiorrcr subrnits that on 28.4.2005 thc pctitioncr madc a rcclucst to thc l)l)A lbr: rcstoration of his allcltmcnt kccping in nrind thc circr-unslanccs that 1hc pctitioncr has no othcr J)Dr\ flat for his lamily mcrnbcrs ancl thc pcrtitiqncr is rcady to pay thc canccllation chargcs and intcrcst accrucci lhcrcorr. Counscl furthor submits tlrat thc said rcprcscntation of thc pctitioncr \ /as considcred by thc DDn and a rcport was sor.rght rcgarding issuancc ancl scrvicc of dcntaud-or-un-atliotmcnt lctter', with rcspcct to tlrc thircl allotrnent, sent to thc pctitioncr. CorinScl next submits that thcrcerflcl thc I)DA proposcd thal thc casc 'oi' tirc pctitioner bc considerccl lbr t'cstoration. In support of this submission counscl lor ttrc pctitiouci' lias reliccl upon the filc notings o1'thc I)DA clatccl 20.3.200(),27.4.2006 irnd 14.6.2006. 'I.hc notings clatcd 2(\3-2A(t6, 2l .4.2006 and 14.6.2006 lcad as uncler: "T'he clispatch register crnct l)ak sen.t l.ct lUD/Systent registctr has been seen ctntl Tilzotocopies cf' lctters senl on 4.4.2002 place:ci olttrtctsile mq, kindllt be seen. T'hc total No. o/'letter wore sent 38 ancl tlte letter in question i.e. I I(141)88/I.SBUV/3949 enterecl il. . 57. No.3l has been strt.tclcacl rtul: ctncl rcmaining 37 lettcrs ituve heen rcceivec{ Iry thc /hr:n. rec'r:ipt,s clerk I'uge 4 of lA. -a H,.t,.((.) t0(,/2012 'l'he repot"t i,t :;ubnritted Stleasc. \c 4t. -sdi-

20.s.2006 I)espatcher" "Jn vicvv cd abrtve 'X' tve nxct),,, as ctl.rearly propose(l, sttbmit lltc cttse beJttre h.iglzer a.tdhority to obtain ctltpropriute orclers vvhelher ule mcry consicler lhe cct.se.fbr reslctration or not srtbmit.ted please. Scl/-

27.4.2006 AD(rr) A D(R) DDU,A) Directctr (lU) " Ncnr; Sh.Merlrcnclc:r Singh'hqs macle ct request that clemartd lelter' clated 4.4.2002 was not recei.vecl to lzint due this lne coulc{ not nrtrcle tl'te payntent, and requesled lct restore the can.celplot. In this regcu'cl, rccrrd plocetl daled P/155-156/C in wltich. lctters tttct:; sent./b' dispalcltcd o.f-duted 4.4.2002 ancl it is :;een thcrt letl.er No.P I f 0 4I) I9S/t'S:B(ll)/j949 clatecl 4-4-2002 hlt v'hich cleincLnd Ietler iss4ecl l6sh.hlu|tencfg' Kumctr has bcen struck rtut. (CP/155.). I(ecpin.g in view oJ'the po,ritirttt expla.ineel above cuse i:; resubmittecl .fbr cctnsiderutttm und.li.trthcr cn'der in the muller. Szbmitlecl pleuse. AD(R) Dr.)(r,A) " 'sd/- l,(.a.200ri (DP Singh) l0.Lcarnccl counscl tbr thc pctitioncr subrnits that lilc rtotings of thc I)DA clatcd 27.4.2006 wclulcl clcariy show that thc casc of thc pctitionor was subrnittccl bcforo thr-. highcr ai-rtholity to obtain appropriatc oldcrs to rcconsiclcr thc caso o[' thc pctitioner ftlr rcsloration. Counsel firrthcr -t fi"P.((',) 806/20r2 I'ugc 5 rtf' I0 \\ )' .1' subnrits that the filc noting ol'thc DDA datccl 14.6.2006 woulcl show that thc casc ol thc pctitioncr was rcsubmittecl lirr consiclcration. I l. Lca1ncd counscl lbr thc rcsponclont DDz\ has opposcd tiris pctition on tlre ground that at no point oJ'timc thc petitioncr hacl raisecl thc issuc of non-rcccipt of thc clcrnancl-cnm-arllotrncnt lcttcl with thc DDn scriously nor any prcjr-rdicc was causocl lry non-rcccipt o[ thc clcrnand-curn-allotrncnt lcttcr. Oounscl furtlrcr submits Lhal in nonc of thc rcprcscntations madc by tfic pctitioncr, hc oorirpiaincd l"hat on account of thc non-rcccipt of the demalcl-cun-allotrncrrt lettcr hc could not makc the paymcnt nor thc pctitioncr at any point ol'tirnc sought oxtcnsion of time to rlrakc the payrncnt. Counscl aiso contcncls that thc grievancc of thc petitionci' throughout was tlrat the piot allotted to him was not suritablo to hirlr as it. .was thc saltlc al'ca as the sccon<l allotrncnt rvas ma<lc to him. Cotrnscl ncxt contcncls that cven in tlrc rcply to thc shou, oausc notico thc pctitioncr ha<l nol raisccl a gricvancc that Jrc has not rcccivccl arry clcmand-otrrn-allottlcnt lcttcr Jtorn tlrc t)DA t:ut had pr'irnal'i11, cornplainc<l that lhc dcinand raisccl in tlrc show causc notice ciatctl 26.8.2002 is in acccss. 'o, lZ. Loarncd counscl for thc rcsporrdcnt subnrits that in thc 'subjcct' of tlro rcpty to tlrc show citusc noticc and thc.comtnltnicatiotrs issucd by the pctitioncr-to thc DDn, tlrc pctilioncr has mcntioncd as 'Allotmcut ol altclrativc plot'. ln suppolt o.[his submissiou counscl has rclicci upon ihc reply <latecl 4.4.2002 to thc shorv causc noticc and thc cottttlunications clatccl 24.1t).2002 and'i.22AJ i, to sliow tliat thc subjcct oI thc lcttcr rvas "allotmcnt o[ altcrnaLivc pJot undcr Schernc of Largc Scale r\ccluisition, Dcvclopnrcnl ancl l)isposal of Latncl in Dclhi". Lcttcrs ciatcd 24.10-2002 and 7 .2.201 I rcad ats ttttdt:ri L.

4.4.7002 Sub.: Allotrncnt oJ. altcurative plot Lrnder Sciictnc of I-argo Soa.lc Accluisition, I)cvcJoptlrcut arlcl Disposal of Lancl in Dclhi." ;,': I'ttgc 6 of l0 ( H|P.(L) 806/2012 \.Y Sub.: Altcrnate allclLmcnt of plot Itohini ttcsidontial Schcrnc, New tr. 1 1 (14 I ) 88/LSII([{yDDA /9980 ;'

24.10.2002 No.72, Pockct-16, Scctor 20, Dclhi rcgalding rclbrencc No.- .4. I (( . Sub: Allotmont of alternative plot Scalc Accluisition, I)evelopmcnt & 1961;',

7.2,20II undcr thc schcrno oL 'Largc Disposal clf Land in Dclhi-

¶13Lcarnccl counscl for thc lespondenl submits thal as pcr thc policy, which t',u, t .",r" li'arncd ancl rvhicir is nclt disputocl, thc pctitioncr ccluld lravo bccn glantccl Lhrcc oppclri.unitics. 'l'hc pctiticlncr was allottcd a plot not oricc but on thrcc occasions and sincc hc dcclinod to acccpt 1hc sailc at this belated stagc no rolicl'carn bc grantcd to thc pctitioner. Counsbl furthcr submits tlrat thc ttrird tcqtrest of thc petitioncr: fot allotrncnt of an alternatc plot was not consiclcrccJ by thc I)DA owing to ttrc poiicy of altct'nativc allotrnent arrd para 3 (vii) o1't.hc tcrms and conclitions of allotnrcnt letl.cr datccl 4.4.2002. (lounscl furthcr submits sincc thc pctitioncr 'lailecl to subrnit thc proof cll'payrtrcnLs dcpositccl by hirn t<lrvarcls thc prcmium of tlrc plot, in spitc of thc show cause noticc, thc allotrncnt of thc plot was canccllcd with tlrc approval of compctcnt authority and tho sanc w'as convcycd to hirn viclc lctler clatcd 15.12.2003

¶14I havc \card lcamcd c,ounscl for thc partics, consiclerccJ thcir rival conl.cnlions and also pcruscc{ the clocumcnts pfaced on rccorcl inoluding thc anncxlrrcs, which havc br:cn filcd along wjth thc plcadings, gnd thc original rccorcl, which 'has bccu procluccil b1, cclt-ttrscl ibr thc DDA in Court tclclay-'l'lrc facls ol thc casc not in disputc that Lhe aSiricultural laricl I'ugc 7 ttf I0 a fi'.P.((') 806/2012 \7 'rc .? ol' lhc pctitioncr", was acqlrirod unclel' thc Sclrornc of' La'gc Scalc Accluisition, I)evclopmcn[ and Disposal of l,and in Dclhi, 1961, and an Award No.2045 dated 16J2.1967 was rnadc. 'I'he nantc of thc potitioncr was rccolnrncndcd by tlic Laucl and Iluilding Dcpartmont, (iovcrnmcnt of NC'l' oi l)clhi, to 1hc I)DA [b.r: allotmcnt of an altcmatc plot of land. In vicw of thc Poiicy of the DDn, it was proposcd that such rccommenclecs woulcl bc givcn thrco chancbs lowards alloturcnt of an altctnal.ivc pLot. In thc ycar 1993, DDn allottcd aplot in Narclato thc pctitioncr. l)cLitioncr clcpositcd tlrc.firsL installrncuL on?4.2.1993, howcvcr, hc rnadc a rcclucst to thc I)Dn for canccllatiorr ol'ttrc said plot as hc found that thc alca was not suitablc. In thc ycar' 2000. thc pctitiollcr was allottcd arrclthcr plot by ttrc I)DA iir ttohini. 'I'Jrc pctitioncr clcpclsited thc first installurcnt u'ith rcspcot to thc snicl pl91 r,vitir thc DDA on 1.9.2000, but sinc:c thc logailion of the plot wns not l-avotrrabic to thc pctitioncr, thc pctitioncr rnadc a . rcqucst 1o tho DI)n lor canceUation of thc said plot. On 4.ttr.2002 anotircr plot was allottcd by tiic DDA to thc pctitioncr in Scct<lr 20 Rohini.

¶15lt is thc casc o1'thc pctitioncr that although a dernand-curl-alloLrncnt lcttcr lvas no1 rcceived by thc potitioncr yct thc pctitioncr rcccivcd a sirow caiusc noticc datccl 26.8.2002 fi'orn thc I)DA as hc failcd to rnakc thc payrnent 1o thc DDA r.vith rcspcct to thc pJot allottecl to hirn. 'l'hc pctitioncr was also cantioncd tJraL in casc no satis{-actory tcply is rcccjvccl fiorn thc pctitioner, thc allotrncnt madc in his l?n,clur r.voulcl bc canccllcd withoul any {irrthor opportr"urity. 'I'hc pctitioncr ur 9.9.2002 rcplicd to thc said shorv caLrsc notice whcrcin thc pctitiorrcr', whiie pointing out tirat hc had not reccived thc dcmand-cum-allotmcnt icttcr, compiaincd that tlic anl<iunl ol dcrnancl, as statctl in thc shclw citusc notice clatod 26.8.2002, is; not corrcct, and thc: arnounl chargcd is in exccss..i)DA vidc gommuuicirtion clatccl 18.12.2003 intilrrncd thc p'ctitionct' about the canccllation ol'allt;trncnt nrado in hi.s ,tv l'ui4e I oJ' I0 ':' L','.P.((') 80(t/2012 I o Iavour. 'l'hc pctitioncl thcrcaflcr rnade reprcscntation to tirc Licutcnant (iovcrnor o[ I)c]hi arrd thc DDA. In rcsponse to thc rcprcsentation madc to thc l)Dn,' ilrc potiticlner rcccivcd a comrnunicalion .[i'om the DDA inlbnning liim that his rcqucst hacJ bcen considcrccl by ttrc sarnc could not bc acbctjcd to.

¶16'I'hc main thrust of thc argurlents of learncd counscl lor thc pctitioncr is that sincs thc clcmancl-curn-allotrncnt lotter datcd 4.4.2002 was not rccoirrcct by hirn, rvhich is cvidcnt fi'oin thc lilc notings of thc DDA, thc pctiti<xrcr could not ltavc bccn cxpcctcd to rnakc tho paylncnts. I'his subrnission of Mr.Saini, cotrnscrl Jbr thc pctitioncr, cannot bc accoptcd ancl this stand js not borne out oJ-thc lcttcrs writlen by thc petitioncr to thc I)I)l\.

¶17Mr.lt.K. Saini, lcalncd cour:scl for thc pctitioncr, has stlongly plcaclcd that thc pctitioncr is a iatrncr and not an. ectucatccl or litcratc pcrson. 1,'hc lancl of tlrc pctitioncr itrcusrtring 7.13 bighas was acquirccl rvay back in thc ycar 1S)67 and hc has bccn living lvith thc hopc of nrakinp, a lrousc. Mlr.Saini {tltlrcr sut-''nrits tiral ilrc filc notings of thc l)DA rvoutcl sho'uv that aithough initially 1hc pctitioncr had bccn rcclncsting lbr an altcrnale plot but tiruc ancl again hcr u,hs plcading io thc DDA to rcconsidct his rcclucst ttlr lcsi<rration of thc plot, which has bccn canccllccl. Counsci. contcncls that thc potitioncr has rrcithct claimcd a plot at thc ratcs whcn it was alloLtccl to liim anci in Jait evcii in thc prayel'maclc in the writ irclition thc pctitioncr has praye<t that a plot rnay bc aliottcd to hirn at l.he ctrrrcnl ratcs of 2011. Counscl ncxt contends thal at this stagc thc nctitioncr vvoulcl bc satisficci if'a dilcction is issuccl to DDA to consitlcr his rcprcscrrtaLion ancl thc rcclucst lbr tostoration of thc allotmutt on surch i"clrms as thc DDA may considcr approprialg.-tirr thc rcason tlrat the pctitioncr has also bccn rnakirrg lcplcscntatidn to thc l)l)n lor.rcstolation ol'tho alloinrc,nt which H'.t'.((') 80(t/2012 " i'ttgo () t;! 10 1U. lras rrot bccn cxarlirrccl by tho DI)A. Lcarttcd suburits tlrat all thc rcprcscntalions madc by consiclcretl and reieotcd. 'l'trc argumcnt of Mr.Saini, ccxrnscl for thc pctitioncl: thc clemand-cutn-alloLrncnt lcttcr clatcd 4.4.2002 rvas not rcccivcd by thc pctitioncr and thus thc action of tlrc I)I)A ol'canccllation of thc allotmcnt is unrcasonablc alcl bad in law; thc sartc cannot bc acccptcd as thc sarnc is rTot bornc out lionr tho lcttcrs writl.cn by tho pctitioncr to thc pbn; ancl thc salrlc only scotns to tro an aftcrthought.

¶19Accorclir-ri;ly' tirc rvrit pctition is disrnisscc{, bowcvcr, kccping in r,'ierv lhc f-acts o{' this casc ancl havin.s, rcgard to thc lact that pctitioncr is an illitcratc J?urncr u,hose kurci has becn acquirccl and furthcl lfie pctitiotier is willing to pay tlrc culrcnt cost in casc a rcprcscntation is rnadc by tJrc pctitioncr to thc l)])A iur rcstoration of thc allotr:rcnt tladc to hiin, iitt. I)l)n js clircctocl to consiclcr Ll-ro samc syrnpathctically ancl jn accotclancc with larv kccping in vicrv.thc pcculiar l-acts of this casc within thrcc months li'clm thc datc o1'rcccipt of thc rcprcscntation. counscl fot thc DDn thc pctiticlncr stands I'ui4c I l) qf i (|. -, al [' r \ (.)C'[08],lR {15,2{ll2 llrsf gg;-v4',+! / ---9'-<24^6'- - G.S,StS;'f'Al"qI. r fl"P.((.) 806/20r2 * *. i*e +lri Srr, n *. riA ;d

(; ) I : 08. $- :!3 -r- I t I ; li I I {(l" I o trh[ 'l'tril,] HIGI-I COUIRT OF l]El,HX A'l' Nn,W DtrlL]Il w.P.(c) 80612012