Sohan Lal vs Union Of India
1997 Latest Caselaw 707 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

(1) The decision of the learned Single Judge dated 29.11.1984 partly dismissing the Appellant's writ petition No.283 of 1983 is under challenge in this appeal.

(2) The Appellant in his writ petition had sought quashing of an order dated 26.10.1982 passed by the Delhi Administration cancelling the allotment of plot No. A-2/59, Paschimpuri, West Zone, New Delhi, on the ground that the Appellant had concealed that he had applied earlier for alternative plot of land under the Scheme "Large Scale AÞcquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi" and the order dated 17.12.1982 passed by the Delhi Development Authority forfeiting the premium of Rs. 13,382.00 .

(3) The Appellant on 13.12.1971 filed an application for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of his acquired land. After necessary enquiry, a recommendation was made by the Delhi Administration, (Land & Building Department) in its letter dated 26.05.1979 to the Delhi Development Authority for allotment of 250 sq. yds in Appellant's favour in West Zone. The plot bearing No.A-2/59, situated at Paschimpuri, New Delhi measuring 167.226 sq. mts. was allotted in the name of the Appellant vide letter dated 15.01.1980, The Appellant was called upon to make the payment of the premium and other charges. Pursuant to the said demand the Appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 13,382.00 . Before lease deed could be executed in Appellant's favour, Delhi Administration asked the Appellant to produce a cy of jamabandi of the acquired land. At that stage, according to the respondents, it transpired that the Appellant had earlier applied for allotment of an alternative plot and his application was processed vide File No. 39/11/46/64-L&H. It was also noticed that column No. 11 of the second application dated 13.12.1971 had been kept blank by the Appellant and no information was furnished to the question that whether any application for allotment of any alternative plot was submitted earlier? Treating it to be a case of non disclosure of the correct particulars thereby amounting to concealment of material facts and misrepresentation of fact the Appellant was called upon to explain as to why prosecution be not launched against him. Reply to the notice was filed by the Appellant on 01.07.1982. During those proceedings personal hearing was afforded to the Appellant. Instead of launching prosecution against the appellant decision was taken on 26.10.1982 to withdraw the recommendation. Consequent to the withdrawal of recommendation, the Delhi Development Authority passed an order on 17.12.1982 forfeiting the premium paid by the Appellant.

(4) The Appellant challenged the aforesaid two orders in the writ petition on a number of grounds one of which was violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no show cause notice had been issued to the Appellant as to why the allotment be not cancelled and as to why the premium amount be not forfeited.

(5) On the above ground learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that during the proceedings taken pursuant to show cause notice dated 17.06.1982, personal hearing was given to the Appellant by an officer of the Delhi Administration on 21.10.1982. Such hearing was a sufficient opportunity to the Appellant since during personal hearing by the concerned officer, the Appellant was asked to explain the reason for not furnishing any information against column No.11. Learned Single Judge proceeded to observe that no further opportunity was required to be given since the opportunity afforded was a reasonable opportunity.

(6) For the second order as regards forfeiture of the premium amount learned Single Judge concluded that the order had been passed without affording any opportunity of being heard, therefore, the said order was bad. The writ petition consequently was partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.1982 passed by the Delhi Development Authority forfeiting the premium amount of Rs. 13,382.00 was set aside with liberty reserved to the Dda to pass fresh order after serving show cause notice and affording personal hearing. The writ petition was dismissed qua the first order of cancellation the allotment. The appeal is against that part of the order We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

(7) By first show cause notice dated 17.12.1982 the appellant had only been called upon to explain as to why prosecution be not launched against him in not having disclosed relevant information in his second application against column 11 that no application for allotment of plot was submitted earlier. No where the show cause notice had called upon the appellant to explain as to why the allotment made in his favour be not cancelled. Any hearing in the proceedings in which the appellant was called upon to show as to why he be not prosecuted cannot be termed as sufficient opportunity of being heard on the point of cancellation of allotment. On allotment having been made in appellant's favour a valuable rights in the said plot accrued in appellant's favour. In case the respondents intended to deprive of the appellant of the same it was but obligatory on the part of the the respondent to have followed the principles of natural justice of serving an appropriate show cause notice and to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The mere fact that during the course of hearing on the show cause notice that why prosecution be not launched, the appellant was asked to explain reason as to why he had not made disclosure as regards his first application in the second application cannot tant amount to complaining with the principles of natural justice.

(8) Reasoning of the learned ingle Judge that when pursuant to the Show cause notice the Appellant had put in appearance before the concerned officer, his explanation was called and the same would amount to an opportunity of being heard cannot be sustained in law. Needless to add that it was not the case of the respondents that pursuant to the first application by the Appellant any allotment had been made in his favour. The first application, according to the Respondent was also not available since the file in which it was dealt with had been destroyed. The only information which was available - with the respondents was that the first application which was moved by the appellant was closed for want of some information which the appellant was called upon to furnish but failed to furnish the same.

(9) For the simple reason that there has been violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the Appellant was not afforded any opportunity of being heard and no show cause notice was served before the recommendation was withdrawn, the impugned orders is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly and consequently the impugned decision dismissing the writ petition is set aside and and the appeal is allowed.

(10) While admitting the appeal interim order was passed staying the operation of the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated 29.11.1984. The respondents were directed to keep one plot reserved for the Appellant till the disposal of the appeal. Since the appeal has been allowed and the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing writ petition has been set aside and the writ petition has also been allowed, instead of directing the Respondents to take a fresh decision, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case treating the second application as complete information in continuation of the first application, the recommendation and allotment made pursuant to the second application is directed to be treated as recommendation and allotment made in the first application and the respondents are directed to put the Appellant in possession of the same plot in question. In case for any reason the said plot is not available, possession of an alternative plot of an equal area in the same locality will be handed over to the Appellant pursuant to the same letter of allotment. In case any additional amount will be required to be paid pursuant to the allotment letter which had been issued in Appellant's favour, the respondents will apprise the Appellant within a period of two months from today. On complying with any other formalities that may be required, requisite lease deed will be executed in appellant's favour within a period of four months.

(11) Dasti.