Lawrence Road Modern Education ... vs Sh. Cecil Naronha
1997 Latest Caselaw 916 Del

ORDER

M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.

1. By the order dated 24th November, 1989 passed in Civil Writ No. 1227/88, the respondent was directed to issue afresh letter of allotment to the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 21st January, 1987 without asking for any restoration charges or interest. On 12th September, 1990, the petitioner filed this petition under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for disobedience of the said order. No show cause notice was ordered to be issued against respondents. However, on 17-7-91, learned counsel for the respondent appeared before the Court and delivered the letter dated 16-7-1991 to the Secretary of the petitioner society with regard to delivery of possession, concerning the plot in question. Consequently, following order was passed:-

"Learned counsel for DDA has delivered a letter dated 16-7-1991, addressed to the Secretary of the petitioner, with regard to delivery of possession, concerning the plot in question. I direct that Secretary of the petitioner shall contact the Assistant Engineer, D.D.A., for taking possession at 3. P.M. on 22.7.1991. Adjourned to 31st July, 1991."

2. The main thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that possession of the site No. 11 was not handed over to the petitioner in terms of the Court's order dated 24-11-1989 and what was offered to the petitioner was site No.9 and as such the respondent has violated the Court's order dated 24-11-1989. It is beyond the pale of controversy that by the letter dated 21st January, 1987 plot measuring 0.25 acre of the site No. 11 was allotted to the petitioner. On 22nd July, 1991 Mr. A. Tawwab, General Secretary of the petitioner society acknowledged in writing on the map (Annexure X) of his having received possession of the site No.11 on behalf of the petitioner society. It is stated in the affidavit dated 13-2-92 filed by Shri S. Prakash, Director (Lands), DDA that pursuant to the Court's order dated 24-11-1989 fresh letter of demand-cum-allotment was issued on 23rd October, 1990 to the petitioner charging the cost of land at the rate of Rs. 3 lacs per acre and no restoration charges or any amount of interest had been included in the said letter. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the site No.11 was allotted to the petitioner and the area of the land of which the possession had been given to the petitioner on 22nd July, 1991 is in excess of 222.21 sq. mtr than the area (0.25 acre), which was earlier allotted to the petitioner and further, in respect of this excess area, the petitioner society is liable to pay to the repondent the land charges etc.

3. The petitioner's grievance is that what has been allotted to the petitioner is site No.9 and not the site No.11. Thus, the dispute which remains to be seen and decided is as to whether on 22nd July, 1991 possession had been delivered of site No.11 or site No.9.

4. Admittedly, on 22nd July, 1991, Shri A.Tawwab, Secretary of the petitioner society had acknowledged in writing of having received possession of the site No.11 on behalf of the society. In his affidavit, Shri A. Tawwab, Secretary of the petitioner society has stated that although he had signed the document (Annexure 'X') with regard to delivery of possession of the site No. 11 but actual possession was not handed over to him.

5. It is pertinent to point out that on 17-7-91, Secretary of the petitioner society was directed by this Court to take possession of the site in question on 22-7-91 at 3 p.m. Shri S. Prakash, Director (lands), DDA and Shri A.K. Baranwal, Director (Institutional) have unequivocally stated in their affidavits that on 22-7-1991 possession of the site No.11 area measuring 1233.96 sq. mtrs was handed over to the petitioner society. On this point their statements find sufficient confirmation from the endorsement made and signed by Shri A. Tawwab, Secretary of the petitioner Society on the map (Annexure 'X'). In addition to this, Shri P.C. Jain, Additional Commissioner (Planning) DDA has also stated in his affidavit that the site No.11 of which possession was handed over to the petitioner is the same site which was allotted to the petitioner in 1987. On this point, his statement finds ample corroboration from the map (Annexure Z-2), which clearly shows that the site No.11 was earmarked for the petitioner. There is nothing on record to disbelieve affidavits of the said officers of the DDA. Thus, the said evidence prima facie proves that on 22-7-1991 possession of the site No.11 was taken over by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, no reliance can be placed on the bald statement of Shri A. Tawwab, Secretary of the petitioner society with regard to non-delivery of possession of the site in question.

6. It is also significant that pursuant to the Court's orders dated 17-7-1991 possession of the site was taken over on 22-7-1991 by Shri A. Tawwab, Secretary of the petitioner society without a demur or protest. The petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to the identity of the site till filing of the affidavit dated 13th February, 1992 by Shri S.Prakash Director (Lands) DDA. No explanation whatsoever has been offered on behalf of the petitioner for this inordinate delay in raising the dispute with regard to identity of the site in question. This circumstance to a great extent probabilises the case of the respondent that the dispute raised by the petitioner society with regard to identity of the land allotted to it vide letter of allotment dated 21st January, 1987 and of which possession was taken over on 22-7-1991 is an after thought. On the contrary, I have on hesitation in coming to the conclusion that on 22-7-1991 possession of the site No.11 area 1233.96 sq. mtrs was taken over by Shri A. Tawwab, Secretary of the society on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner society is entitled to retain the area of 0.25 acre only (1011.75 sq. mtrs.) of the site No.11, which was allotted to it vide letter of allotment dated 21st January, 1987.

7. Since the order dated 24-11-1989 passed by this Court in CW No. 1227/88 has been complied with by the respondents, no further action in this regard is needed. The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly. Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. No order as to costs.