* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 13408/2009
Date of Decision:23rd February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAGHUBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Y.P. Ahuja, Adv.
versus
CHAIRMAN, DDA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey,
Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik,
Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondents/DDA to hand over the physical possession of an alternate plot allotted to him bearing Plot No.66, Pocket No.1, Block-A, Sector-22, Rohini measuring 209 sq. mtrs. under Rohini Residential Scheme.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents decided to allot alternative plots to such of the expropriated land owners, whose land was acquired under the respondent/DDA's Scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi.
3. Vide letter dated 18.03.2008, the respondents/DDA had informed the petitioner that he had been allotted the subject alternative plot on perpetual lease hold basis and that he was W.P.(C) No.13408/2009 Page 1 of 5 required to submit an application for allotment of the same along with acceptance of terms and conditions of allotment and also to complete the requisite formalities including payment of the premium of the land in the manner set out in the said letter.
4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that between 03.04.2008 to 01.05.2008, the petitioner had deposited an amount of `13,27,381/- as demanded by the respondents/DDA. On 21.07.2008, the petitioner submitted an application to the respondents/DDA praying inter alia that he be handed over the possession of the subject plot. On 22.08.2008, the respondent/DDA informed the petitioner that his file was not traceable and as soon as the same would be traced, he would be given information in this regard. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear from the respondent/DDA for a long time. Finally, on 20.01.2009 the petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents/DDA calling upon it to hand over possession of the aforesaid alternative plot to him. As no reply was received from the respondents/DDA to the said notice, on 9.7.2009, the petitioner filed the present petition.
5. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated 25.11.2009. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents/DDA wherein it is stated that the petitioner was allotted the subject plot through a draw held on 08.02.2008 and a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him on 18.03.2008. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No.13408/2009 Page 2 of 5 respondents/DDA received a complaint dated 27.05.2008 from one Sh. Jai Prakash, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, who claimed that he has purchased the recommendation letter from the petitioner by paying him a sum of `10,00,000/-. Further, the complainant requested DDA to stop the process of possession and execution of lease deed in favour of the petitioner. It is averred in the counter affidavit that as per the DDA rules and regulations, alternative plots were to be allotted to rehabilitate the allottees and their legal heirs and they were not allowed to sell the plot/recommendation letter or the allotment of the alternative plot. As a result, the respondents/DDA issued a letter dated 12.09.2008 to the complainant, Sh. Jai Prakash as well as the petitioner herein, to get their dispute settled from the competent court of law so that the case could be proceeded further for handing over the possession of the subject alternative plot on the terms and conditions of allotment. Counsel for the respondents/DDA contends that instead of settling the dispute, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 02.09.2008 to the DDA, which was examined and replied to by the respondents/DDA on 06.10.2008 again calling upon the petitioner to settle the dispute with the complainant Jai Prakash through a competent court of law.
6. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents/DDA, the petitioner has denied having ever entered W.P.(C) No.13408/2009 Page 3 of 5 into an agreement with the complainant, Jai Prakash, or any other person. It is further averred that the aforesaid complainant had moved an application for impleadment in the present proceedings, registered as C.M.No.3683/2010 which was finally withdrawn by the applicant as recorded in the order dated 24.05.2010. Thus, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner having deposited the amount as demanded by the respondents/DDA, it is under an obligation to hand over the vacant, physical possession of the subject plot allotted to him forthwith.
7. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The allotment of the subject plot in favour of the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents/DDA nor is it disputed that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of `13,27,281/- with the DDA as long back as in the month of April- May, 2008. Furthermore, it is not denied by the respondents/DDA that till date, it has not been served with an order passed by any court in proceedings initiated by the complainant wherein, DDA has been restrained from handing over possession of the subject plot to the petitioner. In the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the fact that the petitioner is not aware of any civil suit having been filed against him and he asserts that there is no litigation pending between the petitioner and the complainant or for that matter, with any third party, pertaining to the subject W.P.(C) No.13408/2009 Page 4 of 5 plot.
8. In this view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present petition with directions to respondents/DDA to deliver vacant, physical possession of the alternate plot to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today upon completion of requisite formalities as may be communicated by the respondents/DDA to the petitioner. However, this shall not preclude the respondents/DDA from calling upon the petitioner to furnish an affidavit confirming the fact that he has not been served with any order from any Court/forum, restraining him from taking possession of the subject plot from DDA and further undertaking to indemnify DDA for any claim that may be lodged against it with respect to the subject plot, as may be considered necessary.
9. The petition is disposed of.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 23, 2012 JUDGE
'anb'
W.P.(C) No.13408/2009 Page 5 of 5