R.P. Bajpai And Ors. vs Government Of National Capital ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 310 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

(1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners case is that in the year 1982, Director of lndustries,respondentNo. 2, acting on behalf of the Delhi Administration, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of 177 industrial plots (80plots of 400 sq. yards, 82 plots of 300 sq. yards and 65 plots of 250 sq. yards) in an Industrial Estate proposed to be developed at Okhla, New Delhi. Approximately30,000 applications were received and out of them after scrutiny about 13,000applicants were found eligible. After short listing the number of eligible applicants was reduced to approximately 3,000 and the allotments of 177 plots were proposed to be made by draw of lots. In the draw of lots held in the month of June, 1983,177eligible applicants were selected which also included the petitioners. They were allotted respective plots @ Rs. 245.00 per sq. yard. Unfortunately the plots allotted to the petitioners were undeveloped and heavily encroached upon by Jhuggi dwellers at the time of allotment with the result that possession thereof could not be delivered to them. On 24/06/1983 petitioners were informed in writing that the possession of plots allotted to them were not being handed over to them. It is further alleged that 50% sale price which was deposited through bank drafts by the petitioners with respondent No. 3 was returned. The earnest money in the sum of Rs. 2,000.00 deposited by each of the petitioners was, however, retained by respondent No. 3 and the petitioners right to receive plot(s) when fully developed was kept intact.

(2) After waiting for over 12 years the petitioners were intimated vide letter specificplotsdated 27/04/1993 by respondent No. 3 that a draw of lots for allotment of specific plots would be held on 29/04/1993. In that draw of lots the petitioners were allotted specific plots as detailed in Annexure Pi in the Functional Industrial Estate for Electronics, Okhla Phase-11, New Delhi. As against the rate of Rs. 245.00 per sq.yard, on which rate allotment was made in 1983, the petitioners were offered [email protected] per sq. yard. The petitioners were called upon to send their acceptance within ten days of the issue of letters and to deposit the total amount of premium within a period of 90 days through bank draft(s) in favour of respondent No. 3.Petitioners accepted the offer and within the stipulated period deposited the entire premium as demanded through pay order(s).

(3) It is further alleged that after deposit of the entire premium amount petitioners 1 &3 received letters from respondent No. 3 enclosing therewith copies of the lease-deed in quadruplicate for the purposes of stamping and registration.Petitioners 1 & 3 were called upon to return the lease deed duly stamped by the Collector of Stamps. Despite repeated letters petitioners 2,4 & 5 were not provided with the copies of the lease-deeds for the purposes of payment of stamp duty andregistration. Petitioners 1 & 3 deposited the stamp duty with the Collector ofStamps, got the perpetual lease-deeds stamped from the Collector of Stamps and submitted them with respondent No. 3. Conveyance fee @ Rs. 32.00 per lease-deed was also deposited by the petitioners. Inspite of the fact that specific plots stand allotted to the petitioners, they having paid the entire premium, petitioners 1 & 3having paid the requisite stamp duty etc. and petitioners 2,4 and 5 being ready and willing to pay the stamp duty and to get the perpetual lease deeds registered in their names, respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to deliver the vacant physical possession of the plots allotted to the petitioners.

(4) Information disclosed in Annexure P 1 is indicated by the table given below: Name of Petitioner Plot No. Amount of premium Paid on1. Dr.R.P.Bajpai 31 2,05,437.00 30.10.19932. M/s.Stul Engineers 18 2,05,437.00 8.9.19933. Sehdev Sharma 70 2,12,040.00 14.8.19934. H.S.Boparai 45 2,09,687.00 -5. Rajesh Kumar 33 25,000.00 16.11.1993 1,78,437.00 12.3.1994

(5) It is prayed that by issue of a writ of mandamus respondents be directed to deliver the vacant physical possession of the plots allotted to the petitioners in Functional Industrial Estate for Electronics, Okhla Phase-11, New Delhi and to execute perpetual sub-leases in their favour in respect of the plots allotted to them.

(6) Government of Nct of Delhi, Director of Industries, Commissioner ofIndustries, Lt. Governor and Dda have been imp leaded as respondents. On 13/01/1997 respondents 1 to 3 were allowed four weeks further time by way of last opportunity to file the reply and the case was postponed to 4/03/1997.Neither reply was filed nor anyone put in appearance for respondents 1 to 3 on that date. Respondent No. 5 has not chosen to file any reply in the case.

(7) Contention advanced by Mr. P. Nandrajog appearing for the petitioners was that the petitioners case is squarely covered by decision of a Division Bench of this Court in C.W. No. 3170/95 titled as Brijesh Chandra Sharma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 1/07/1996 and the petition deserves to be allowed.

(8) As noticed above, out of 177 persons, who were found eligible under theScheme, vacant physical possession of the plots could be handed over only to 101persons. 76 plots were either found undeveloped or heavily encroached upon by the Jhuggi dwellers at the time of allotment in 1983. Left out 76 persons were thereafter allotted specific plots in the draw of lots held on 29/04/1993. By the decision in Brijesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra), a batch of writ petitions was disposed of. Petitioners in those writ petitions were amongst 76 left out persons,whom plots were allotted in the draw held on 29/04/1993 and by whom the demanded amount of the premium was paid within the stipulated period. Obviously, the case of the petitioners is identical to the petitioners in aforesaid Cwp No.3170/95 on law and facts. Petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same relief which was granted to the petitioners by the decision in Brijesh Chandra Sharma'scase (supra).

(9) The petition accordingly is allowed but without any order as to costs.Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to execute requisite lease-deeds so as to materialise the allotments of plots made to the petitioners. If any incidental formality is required to be fulfillled by any of the petitioners, the same shall be duly complied with by them within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of intimation in this regard from respondents 2 & 3. Respondents 2 & 3 are directed to commence the follow up actio within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ order from this Court. In all eventualities the execution of the lease-deeds and delivery of possession shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ order from this Court. It will, however, be open to respondents 1 to3 to scrutinise and verify if by occurrence of any subsequent event any of the petitioners has ceased to be entitled or become disentitled for allotment of plot under the Scheme.