Mela Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
1987 Latest Caselaw 91 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) The challenge in this writ petition under Article- 226 of the Constitution is to the cancellation of an allotment of plot of land which had been made in favor of the petitioner.

(2) The petitioner, before he bad .retired from the Army, is stated to have purchasedl and measuring 1017 square yards in Village Basai Darapur in the Union Territory of Delhi. This land was, however, notified for acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act which was issued on 13/11/1959. Subsequently this land was acquired.

(3) The respondents had a policy for allotting alternative plots of land if a person's land had been acquired under the scheme for large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in De

(4) It is alleged that the petitioner then made afresh representation for allotment of a plot of land. His application was considered and on 25/6/1979 the Delhi Administration, respondent No. 2, wrote to the Delhi Development Authority (respondent No. 1.) informing the latter that a plot of 250 square yards be allotted to the petitioner in the West Zone Residential Scheme as the petitioner had been found entitled for the same. Copy of the letter was endorsed to the petitioner and he was informed that the allotment of land was subject to the availability of plot with the respondent-authority. The petitioner then received a letter dated 2/11/1979 from respondent No. 1 in which he was informed that due to non-availability of the plot of the size of 250 square yards it was proposed to offer him a plot of the size of 200 square yards. The petitioner was asked to pay Rs.3,000.00 by way of earned money. ' This amount of Rs. 3,000.00 was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner was then informed by the letter dated 2/11/1979 that the draw of specific plot numbers will be held on 5/11/1979 and the petitioner should attend the said draw. Thereafter the letter dated 16/12/1980 was written by respondent No. I to respondent No. 2 to the effect that residential plot No. A-2/152 in Paschimpuri Residential Scheme had been allotted to the petitioner and the Delhi Administration should inform the Delhi Development Authority if there was any objection to the registration of the said plot. Copy of this letter was forwarded to the petitioner. Mr. Ambrish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that in fact the date of this letter should be 16/12/1979 but I am afraid there is nothing on record to indicate that this is so. However, a letter dated 15/1/1980 was written by respondent No. I to the petitioner informing him about the allotment of the aforesaid plot measuring 167.226 square metres. The petitioner was required to pay a premium of Rs. 13,378.08. As the petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 the balance amount was paid by him. On 20/3/1980 possession of the said plot was handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, impugned letter dated 22/3/1982 was written by the Delhi Administration to the Delhi Development authority in which it was stated, while referring to the Delhi Development Authority's letter dated 12/11/1980 to the effect that the recommendation dated 25/6/1979 of allotment of alternative plot in favor of the petitioner had been withdrawn by the Delhi Administration. It was stated in this letter that earlier a plot of 351 square metres had been allotted to the petitioner but the said allotment had been cancelled due to non-payment of the earnest money. Therefore, allotment was not being: made to the petitioner. The aforesaid cancellation of allotment is being: challenged in the present petition. It was contended by the petitioner that there was a vested right in his being allotted an alternative plot of lard, and that allotment was being denied to him illegally. The only ground given in the counter affidavit, and which has been urged on behalf of the respondents, is that at an earlier date the petitioner had. been allotted land measuring 351 square metres. The petitioner chose not to pay the earnest money and, therefore, the allotment was cancelled. The case of the respondents is that when the petitioner applied afresh for the allotment of land he did not inform the respondents about the earlier allotment and cancellation which had taken place.

(5) It is true that the petitioner ought to have indicated, when he had applied afresh for allotment of land, that at an earlier point of time an allotment had been made but the same had been cancelled. Not indicating this, however, would not be fatal to the case of the petitioner.

(6) It is under the scheme of 1961 that allotment of alternative plot of land is made. The petitioner was undoubtedly offered allotment of land in 1968 of an area of 351 square metres. When the petitioner did not pay the earnest money, the allotment was rightly cancelled. The scheme of large scale holding does not state that if allotment is once cancelled on account of non-payment of money, fresh allotment of land cannot be made if land is. available. In the present case, the petitioner due to poor financial resources unable to pay the amount of earnest money which was originally asked for. The petitioner cannot be penalised for being poor. Schemes like the one under which allotment have been made are meant for public benefit and good. If land is available, and if a person is entitled and eligible to allotment of plot under such a scheme, then the allotment should be made even if at an earlier stage- an allotment had been cancelled because: of the inability of the payment of the earnest money. The petitioner took a chance of losting land completely when he did not pay the earnest money originally asked for. It was petitioner's good fortune that the land was still available when he applied afresh for allotment of land. The petitioner was Found to be eligible for allotment of land by the Delhi Administration vide its letter dated 25/6/1979. Alternative plot of land was not only allotted to the petitioner but the physical possession of the same was also handed over to him. In my view, therefore, there was no justification for the respondents to have cancelled the allotment made in favor of the petitioner. Merely because earlier an allotment had been made and cancelled was not good enough ground for cancelling the allotment which had been made afresh. In any case, the impugned letter of 22/3/1982 has been written, and the allotment cancelled, after the respondents had accepted full purchase price in respect of the land and after possession of the same had been handed over to the petitioner. The respondents could not cancel this allotment, without at least giving the petitioner an opportunity of showing cause against the- proposed action. On this ground also the impugned decision of the cancellation of allotment cannot be allowed to stand.

(7) The petitioner had a right to get an alternative plot of land which had been allotted and it will be wholly in equituous at this stage to deprive him of the same.

(8) For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned letter dated 22/3/1982 is quashed and the respondents are restrained from interfering in the lawful possession of the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 500.00.