Neki Ram Sohan Dass vs Delhi Development Authority
1991 Latest Caselaw 752 Del

JUDGMENT

S.C. Jain, J.

(1) The facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner had been in occupation of land measuring 60 sq yards, hereinafter referred to as the premises in the locality of Motia Khan, where he had been carrying on the business of metal and scrap since 1.1.1960. Many other persons like the petitioner had also been occupying and carrying on the business in different premises in the said locality of Motia Khan.

(2) That in the master plan the Dda, respondent herein framed a policy to allot land for the occupants dealing in metal and scrap in the newly developed Loha Mandi, Naraina, known as Naraina Warehousing Scheme. It was on 16.5.68, that a decision was taken to allot a plot of land measuring 250 sq yards in Naraina Industrial Scheme Phase Ii to the petitioner in lieu of the plot occupied by them in Motia Khan. It was communicated to the petitioner vide latter Annexure P7 but, later on, on 12.6.68 the said allotment was cancelled with the information that some other plot would be allotted. The petitioner was evicted from the premises in Motia Khan on 15.1.1975, but he was not allotted any alternative plot in lieu of the premises from which he had been evicted. The petitioner mad several representations requesting the respondent to allot alternative plot on payment of the reserved price of Rs. 56 per sq yards, but no action was taken. It was only on 15.3.85 that approval was accorded by the Vice Chairman of the respondent Dda to allot a plot of land measuring 100 sq yards to the petitioner in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme vide letter Annexure P8 in lieu of the premises from where he had been evicted, as back as 15.1.1975 vide letter dated 15.1.85 (annexure P8). Unfortunately, neither any allotment letter in that respect was given to the petitioner, nor he was put in possession of the said plot, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking direction to respondent No,. I to make effective allotment by indentifying plot No. in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme and its actual possession to the petitioner at the reserved price,

(3) Despite several opportunities granted, the Dda, respondent herein, did not file counter affidavit to this writ petition, though it has been pending since 1987. Counsel for the respondent stated that he wrote to the Dda several times but he did not receive any comments and as such he could not file any counter,

(4) A perusal of the record shows that the criteria formulated on the basis of the actual sites in possession in the said locality of Motia Khan was as under, 1 to 50 sq yards would be allotted 92 sq yds. 51 to 100 do 125 sq yds. 101 to 150 do 167 sq yds 151 to 200 do 200 sq yds. 201 to 250 do 250 sq yds. 251 to 300 do 300 sq yds. 301 to 350 do 350 sq yds. 351 to 400 do 400 sq yds. 401 and above do 450 sq yds.

(5) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was in actual physical possession of a plot measuring 60 sq yards in Motia Khan and he was dispossessed on 15.1.1975 in pursuance to the policy of the Dda and as such he is entitled to allotment of alternative plot measuring 125 sq yards in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme. The question which arises for determination is what should be the rate at which the respondent should charge for the alternative site.

(6) In this regard at one time the policy was that the persons who were removed and were paying damages should be given alternative allotment at the reserve price, whereas those .who are not assessed to damages should be given allotment at the average auction rate. The new policy was to sub divide those two categories further by reclassifying the persons who are not paying the damages. The new categories were (a) persons against whom proceedings were pending for assessment of the damages but no final order has been passed and (b) those against whom no such proceedings were initiated although they were in fact, doing the business in Motia Khan and were in occupation there. After analysing all the facts relating to the categories, the resolution adopted in this regard was as follows :

"RESOLUTION Resolved that the evictees of both the categories, mentioned in para 2 of the agends-note, be allotted alternative plots at "reserved price", provided they adduce satisfactory proof of their having occupied land at the Loha Mandi (Motia Khan) Clearance Site during ten years, immediately proceeding their eviction, and also pay damages plus an interest of 12.5% per annum thereon, for the same."

(7) Thus, the offer of allotment at the reserved price was extended to those persons who had actually not paid damages provided they adduce sufficient proof that they had occupied area in Motia Khan for ten years. They had to pay damages plus interest for that period.

(8) The petitioner squarely fell in the category who had been paying damages from 1.1.1960 as and when the same was demanded. Record shows that the petitioners had duly complied with all the notice as and when served upon them. The respondent served last notice on 30.3.1985 ( Annexure P4) calling upon them to pay Rs. 427.50 as damages from 1.4.74 to 31.10.1975 which was paid by the petitioners on 4.4.85 vide receipt Annexure P5. The Damage Branch of the respondent Dda issued clearance certificate dated 23.4.85 (Annexure P6) certifying that the petitioners were in occupation of the plot measuring 60 sq yards from 1.1.1960 to 31.10.1975 and that they had cleared the damages against them till 31.10.1975. Despite this fact, which has not been disputed the respondents have neither given allotment letter nor put the petitioners in possession of alternative plot at the reserved price in Naraina Warehousing Scheme. The action of the respondent in not alloting a specific plot of land and non delivery of the same at the reserved price is illegal, unjustified and contrary to the principles of law, equity and fair play. It is also discriminatory inasmuch as other similarly placed persons have long been put in possession of the alternative plots after due allotment. The respondent in this particular case has not followed its own policy and decision in this regard to the prejudice of the petitioner.

(9) In view of this discussion, I issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allot and to give actual possession of a plot of land to the petitioner on the basis of the criteria formulated by the respondents on the basis of actual sites in possession in the said locality of Motia Khan as mentioned at page 3 ante at the reserved price in Naraina Warehousing Scheme within a period of 30 days from today. It is also directed that the plot No.250 which has been kept reserved for the petitioners by the order of this court dated 14.8.87 will not be allotted to any other party till this plot or any other plot, as directed, is allotted and possession delivered to the petitioners at the reserved price. I also impose a cost of Rs 2500.00 on the respondents for dragging the petitioners in litigation for no fault of them. Statutory bodies like Dda are meant for redressing the grievances of the public at large and not to force them to knock the doors of the courts for getting relief. This case is of that type where the Dda forced the petitioners to file the writ petition. Rule is made absolute. Writ petition allowed.