Narendra Kumar And Anr. vs Government Of National Capital ...
1997 Latest Caselaw 312 Del

JUDGMENT

K.S. Gupta, J.

(1) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India case of the petitioners is that in the year 1982, Director of Industries,respondent No. 2, acting on behalf of Delhi Administration, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for allotment of 177 industrial plots (80 plots of 400 sq. yards., 82 plots of 300 sq. yards and 65 plots of 250 sq.yards) in the Industrial Estate proposed to be developed at Okhla, New Delhi.Approximately 30,000 applications were received and out of them after scrutiny about 13,000 applicants were found eligible. After short listing the number of eligible applicants was reduced to approximately 3,000. Allotments of plots were proposed to be made by draw of lots. In the draw of lots held in the month of June, 1983, 177 eligible applicants were selected which also included THE petitioners. They were allotted specific plots @ Rs. 245.00 per square 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 24/06/1933petitioners were informed in writing that the possession of the plots 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 to them. Earnest money of Rs. 2,000.00 deposited by them was,however, retained by respondent No. 3 and the petitioners' right to receiveplot(s) when fully developed was kept intact.

(2) After waiting for over 12 years the petitioners were intimated by letter dated 21/04/1993 by respondent No. 3 that a draw of lots for allotment of 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 /- per sq. yard, on which allotment was made in 1983, the petitioners were offered plots @ Rs. 930.00 per sq. yard. They were called upon to send their acceptance within ten days of the issued of letter(s) and to deposit the total amount of premium within a period of 90 days through Bankdraft(s) in favour of respondent No. 3. Petitioners accepted the offer and deposited the entire premium as demanded through pay order(s) within the stipulated period.

(3) It is further alleged that after deposit of the entire premium amount petitioners 1 to 8 received letters from respondent No. 3 enclosing therewith copies of the lease-deed in quadruplicate for the purposes of stamping andregistration. Petitioners 1 to 8 were called upon to return the lease-deeds duly stamped by the Collector of Stamps. Despite repeated letters petitioners 9 to 11were not provided with the lease-deeds for the purposes of payment of stamp duty and registration. Petitioners 1 to 8 deposited the stamp duty with the Collector of Stamps, got the perpetual lease-deeds stamped from the Collector of Stamps and thereafter 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 to 8 having paid the requisite stamp duty etc.and petitioners 9 to 11 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 Pi is indicated by the table give Name of Petitioner Plot No.Amount of premium Paid on1. Maj. Narendra Kumar742,12,040.0010.7.932. Sunil Kumar Vohra462,09,678.0014.8.933. Vijay B. Aggarwal232,05,437.0014.7.934. J.K. Syal291,51,000.0016.8.9354,437.005. Harvinder S. Chadha 222,05,437.0016.8.936. Vijay Laxmi Gupta242,05,437.0014.8.937. Ozair Iman561,09,678.0017.8.931,00,000.008. Sameer Nayyar612,12,040.008.6.939. Dr.R.Prasad Singhal 282,05,437.0012.7.9310. Arvind Singhal132.05,437.0017.7.9311. RavJi Sood501,07,678.0017.7.931,00,000.00

(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 of the petitioners 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 byway 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.

(7) Contention advanced by Mr. P. Nandrajog appearing for the petitioners.was that petitioners case is squarely covered by as 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 & Or.s. decided on 1/07/1996 and the petition deserved to beallowed.

(8) An notice above out of 177 persons, who were found eligible under the Scheme, vacant physical possessions of the plots could be handed over only to 101 persons. 76 plots were either found undeveloped or heavily encroached upon by the Jhuggi dwellers at the time of allotment in 1983. Left out 76 persevere thereafter allotted specific plots in the draw of lots held on 29/04/1993,By the decision Brijesh Chandra Sharma's case (supra),a batch of writ petitions was disposed of. Petitioners in those writ petitons 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 stipulate period. Obviously the of the present petitioner is identical though the petitioners in aforesaid Cwp No. 3170/95 on law and facts. (sic), therfore, entitled to the same relief which was granted to the petitioners by the decisions in Brijesh Chandra Srhrm's case(supr).

(9) The petitioner accordingly is allowed bu without they order as to costs.Respondets 1 to 3 are directe to execute to requisite lease deeds so as to mater a lose the allotments of plots made to the poetitoners. If any incidental formality is required to the 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 73\are directed oto commence the fooo,ew up action within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of write order from this Court. In all eventuatl9tw the execution of the leases-deeds and delivery of possession shall be completed within a period of three months from the dated of receipt of writhe order from this court. It will however, be open to respondents 1 to 3 to scrutinise and verify if by occurrence of any subsequent event any of the petitioners has ceased to entitled or become disentitle d for allotemnt of plot under the Scheme.