Rameshwar Dayal vs Delhi Development Authority
1994 Latest Caselaw 305 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Shivashankar Bhat, J.

(1) The petitioner has approached this Court in view of the inaction of the respondent in delivering possession of the plot allotted to the petitioner under the following circumstances:

(2) The petitioner is manufacturer of wooden cabinets used for sewing machines and television sets. He has been carrying on his activity in premises bearing Municipal No. 525/16 and 508 situate at Chhota Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi and Circular Road, Shahdara. Another premises also was used by the petitioner being 3-131, Chhota Bazar, Shahdara. These premises are situate in non-conforming area. The land on which these premises were put up were acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the award came to be passed in November, 1968. Since persons like the petitioner were deprived of the facility to run their business or industry, a scheme was formulated to allot alternative sites to the persons who were deprived of their existing premises. On16.12.1968 the petitioner made a representation for the allotment of alternative plot.In the meanwhile the petitioner also requested not to evict him from the present prerinises. On 7.3.1969 the petitioner was asked to apply for the plots in the prescribed form. In January 1970 the petitioner's application was received by the respondent seeking allotment of an industrial plot. Petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,500.00 Along with the application. On 12.5.1970 (Annexure E) the respondent requested the Directorate of Industries to assess the petitioner's land requirements.On 16.11.1971 an order came to be made as per Annexure F allotting plot No. 142, 'Block No. 'C' in Okhla Industrial Area, Phase 1. This allotment was on the specific condition that the petitioner would, within 2 months from the date of possession of the plot, stop the use of the premises and all the three premises were referred in the allotment letter. The petitioner was also asked not to let out or sublet the vacated premises. The petitioner was also asked to deposit by 10.5.1972 the amounts detailed in the said letter of allotment. The total premium of the plot(c) Rs.40.00 per Sq. Yard was Rs. 1,93,600.00. The petitioner was asked to pay 25% of the total premium by 10.5.1972 after giving due credit to the amount already deposited.The balance was Rs. 45,900.00 to be deposited by 10.5.1972. Another 25% of ;the total premium was payable on demand. The letter also stated that the balance 50% of the premium would be payable on demand when electricity and water supply are made available in the scheme. However, in case the petitioner wanted the possession immediately it was stated that the same can be handed over on payment of the full premium of the plot + Rs. 10.00 on account of the cost of preparation of the lease deed and the site plan etc. The petitioner made the following payments as demanded and it is clear that by January 1975 he had paid , qf the premium.

(3) On 18.1.1975 the petitioner made a representation (Annexure G). The petitioner pointed out that the valuation of the plot was on a higher side and the various representations made by the petitioner were not considered and petitioner requested the Vice Chairman of the respondent for personal intervention for refunding the excess collection charges and requested that the old rates may becharged. The letter also refers to the fact that the petitioner had made payment of about 50% of the premium. On 14.3.1975 the petitioner was informed that the allotment of the Industrial plot was restored. However, the representation of the petitioner dated 18.1.1975 was "under decision". Possession was still not handed over to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner proceeded to make his representation. In a letter dated 5.10.1977 (Annexure 1) the petitioner pointed out that the concerned file had to be collected expeditiously from the Cbi by the respondent.The petitioner gave summary of the petitioner's case regarding the allotment of theplot. The petitioner also pointed out that the petitioner's amount with the respondent was Rs. 67,340.00 which was blocked since September 1973 and that the interest alone on the said amount will be Rs. 61,800.00. The petitioner seems to have repeated his requests even thereafter for handing over possession of the plot.

(4) On 1.9.1979 the petitioner was told that the main file of the plot has been sent to the police in connection with some other case and that necessary action would be taken after receiving the file and that the plot still continues to stand in the name of the petitioner. Since the petitioner was not still given the possession of the plot a notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner as per Annexure 'M'. Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out in this notice that petitioner had already paid a sum of Rs. 67,340 .00 and the balance price may be adjusted against the interest accrued on the aforesaid amount since the year 1975 and that if action is not taken to hand over possession of the plot petitioner would resort to appropriate legalproceedings. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

(5) The facts have been stated by me in great detail which speak for themselves.The right of the petitioner to receive the plot is not in dispute. There is also no dispute that the petitioner has complied with the terms of the allotment.

(6) On 29.10.1981 notice was issued by this Court to the respondent to show cause as to why the petitioner should not be admitted. The matter was adjourned on several occasions thereafter. Subsequently Rule was issued. On 14.2.1992 the learned Counsel for the respondent sought a short adjournment so that necessary steps may be taken and the counter affidavit may be filed. There is a reference to the file being with the CBI. On 16.3.1992 it was stated on behalf of the respondent that the file has now been traced and a photo copy of the same has been supplied to the learned Counsel for the respondent by the CBI.

(7) Therefore, he sought time to file the counter affidavit. The Court granted time to file the counter. The matter stood adjourned from time to time againthereafter. So far no counter is filed to the writ petition. In the meanwhile the petitioner filed C.M.1476/1992 to point out that the plot stood in the name of the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi had issued notices demanding property taxes for several years. This also indicates that the Municipal Corporation was intimated by the respondent that the plot was assigned to the petitioner.

(8) The following facts are undisputed:- (I)The petitioner has been carrying on his business/industrial activity in a non-conforming area. The land wherein the activity aforesaid was being carried on was acquired by the Government.(ii) The petitioner was allotted with a site beating plot No. 142, Block 'Cin Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, as early as November, 1971.(iii) The petitioner throughout was ready and willing to comply with the terms of the allotment and make the payment promptly. But the plot was not handed over to the petitioner obviously because the relevant file was with the Cbi in connection with the matter not connected with the allotment of the site in favor of the petitioner.The file has now been received. At any rate the photo copy of the file has been received,.(iv) There is no impediment for completing the allotment process by handing over possession to the petitioner.(v) The learned Counsel for the petitioner made a statement that the petitioner will be paying the balance amount out of the amount payable as stated in the allotment letter dated 16.11.1971 i.e. to say the petitioner is willing to pay the total premium of Rs. 1,93,600.00 out of which about 50% has already been paid.

(9) Since the petitioner is fully entitled to the aforesaid plot of land and the respondent has withheld the completion of the transaction without assigning any reason I am of the view that the inaction of the respondent is arbitrary. Consequently, the respondent is directed to handover possession of the aforesaid plotNo. 142, Block 'C', Okhla Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi to the petitioner subject to the petitioner fulfillling the other terms of the allotment as stated in the allotment letter dated 16.11.1971. It is made clear that the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest to the respondent because the delay, if any, is on the part of the respondents and the petitioner has already made a substantial payment. The respondent is directed to comply with this order within 4 weeks from today. A certified copy of the order may be obtained by the petitioner and sent to the respondent from which the four weeks would commence to operate. The petitioner is entitled to the costs computed at Rs. 3,500.00.