Imamuddin vs Union Of India And Ors.
1997 Latest Caselaw 18 Del

JUDGMENT

(1) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on the allegations that prior to 1975 petitioner- Imamuddin was residing and carrying on business in property No. 3359/VIII, Turkman Gate, Delhi and in the month of April 1976, Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 3, demolished all the properties in Fatak Telian, Turkman Gate, including the said property. Under the Slum Clearance Scheme framed under the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956, persons evicted by the slum clearance orders were to be provided alternative residential/commercial accommodation/land. In lieu of said property No. 3359/VIII petitioner was allotted plot No. 27/56 measuring 12.5 sq.yards in Tirlok Puri. It is alleged that some of the persons similarly situated who were given demolition slips for commercial plots, were also allotted alternative commercial plots either at Turkman Gate or Shahzada Bagh Industrial Area. Therefore, the petitioner made representations on February 1,1994, September 17, 1994, December 21, 1994 and April 24, 1995 to allot him a shop either at Turkman Gate or a plot at Shahzada Bagh Industrial Area, Delhi but his case was rejected on May 30,1995, after the filing of Writ Petition No. 1193/95 which was got dismissed as withdrawn by him with liberty to file fresh petition vide order dated September 27, 1995. It is prayed that by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order dated May 30, 1995 passed by the respondents may be quashed and that by issue of a writ of mandamus Director-1, Slum and J.J. Department, Mcd, be directed to allot a built-up shop to the petitioner at Turkman Gate or in the alternative to allot him a commercial/industrial plot at Shahzada Bagh Light Industrial/Commercial Complex at pre-determined rate as per die policy.

(2) In response to show-cause notice a joint reply on behalf of respondents 2 & 5 supported by the affidavit of Sh. P.L. Nagpal, Deputy Director Allotment (Lease and Liquidation), Slum & J.J., Municipal Corporation of Delhi, has been filed. It is alleged in the reply that the petitioner was allotted plot No. 56 in Block No. 27-28 measuring 12.5 sq.yards at Tirlok Puri and possession slip No. 656 dated May 29, 1976 was also issued to him against demolition slip No. 9119 dated April 16, 1976. Petitioner, however, neither occupied the said plot, nor made the payment of licence fee inspite of the press note published in the newspapers in September 1977. His allotment was ultimately cancelled after issuing show-cause notice vide EO/JJ/E/ 79/D/328 dated November 16, 1979 and vide EO/JJ/E/79/D/461 dated December 4, 1979 the above plot has further been re-allotted in the name of one Niyaz Ahmad. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner is riot covered under the relaxed guidelines of 1991 which provided as under :

(I)the evictees who were issued demolition slip for commercial plot/ shops at Nand Nagari, Trilok Puri, Shahzada Bagh and G.T. Road, Shahdara in lieu of their commercial space at Turkman Gate at the time of demolition and are having these original demolition slips with them;

(II)those evictees who have been issued demolition slips and possession slips but could not get the possession of the shop/plot owing to existence of residential Jhuggies thereon;

(III)the evictees who were issued demolition slips and possession slips but the allotted plot was re-allotted by the department to some other persons.

Order dated May 30,1995 (Annexure A-13) which is sought to be quashed, in fact, is a letter sent by Deputy Director (Allotment), Slum & Jj Department, Mcd, to the petitioner intimating him that his case for allotment of a shop at Turkman Gate was re-examined by the Allotment Committee and he was not found eligible for allotment of a built-up shop at Turkman Gate.

(3) Argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the case of the petitioner is covered by Clause (iii) of the relaxed guidelines of January 1991 and he is, therefore, entitled to allotment of a built-up shop/plot at either of the said two sites. Said clause is reproduced below : "THE evictees who were issued demolition slips and possession slips but the allotted plot was re-allotted by the department to some other persons."

(4) In our view the said clause is applicable to those cases only where the allotted plot was not available for occupation by an evictee because of re-allotment thereof by the Department to some other person. In the instant case, plot No. 27/ 56, Trilok Puri, allotted to the petitioner was made available to him by the respondents in 1976 for occupation but due to the petitioner's failure to occupy it and to pay licence fee thereof allotment made in his favour was cancelled after duly serving a show-cause notice on him on November 2, 1979. In clause (e) of the grounds in the writ petition the petitioner has admitted that he himself did not accept the allotment of said plot No. 27/56, Trilok Puri, as the plot was too small for his business. Obviously, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the said clause (iii) of the relaxed guidelines of January 1991 as urged. Petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any of the two reliefs claimed and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case with no order as to costs.