Lajpat Rai Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
1998 Latest Caselaw 616 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner has sought quashing of the two communications (Annexurcs-P4 and P5). It is alleged that plot No.A-286 in Shivalik Colony, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was the founder member of the Re-habilitation Ministry Employees Co-operative House Building Society, while serving in Rehabilitation Department. The allotment was made on 14.12.1989. It is alleged that the petitioner had paid more than Rs.65,000/- but had not been issued any lease deed or possession letter despite requests. It is alleged that respondent No.2. in connivance with certain group of persons had obtained the petitioner's signatures of which the petitioner came to know subsequently that the same were manipulated by respondent No.2 as documents of sale/transfer of the plot on petitioner's behalf, which resulted in issuance of letters (Anncxures-P.4 and P.5). The same have the effect of cancellation of the petitioner's allotment. The petitioner has further alleged that a notice was got issued by him to the Secretary of the Society on 27.2.1996. The petitioner had neither been allotted the said flat, nor been delivered possession thereof, as such there was no question of the petitioner making any transfer to any third party as wrongly alleged. In this background the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the two orders on a number of grounds.

2. Respondents 1 and 2 in their reply filed on the affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh, Under Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Rehabilitation Division, New Delhi stated that the petitioner was allocated plot No.A-286 by the Society, but he had violated the bye-laws of the Society by entering into an agreement for sale of the plot. The petitioner had thus violated the terms of the agreement dated 10.8.1982 entered into between the Society and the Government, which was entered into in order to ensure that the Members of the Society use the plot for their own use and do not part with the same by way of sale. In order to bind every member to this condition, an affidavit sworn before the Magistrate First Class was obtained from them to the effect that he has not entered into any oral or written agreement for sale/transfer of the plot allotted to him, in any manner, whatsoever to any person before his case is sponsored by the Society to the Ministry for execution of sub-lease. The petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 28.2.1.991. Reference is thereafter made to the complaint received in the office from Shri K.K.Taneja about the agreement entered into between the petitioner and Shri K.K.Behl.

3. After narrating the facts disclosed in the complaint, it is stated in reply that a show cause notice was duly issued to the petitioner as to why the plot allocated to him by the Society be not cancelled, in view of the fact that he had violated the terms of the agreement. The petitioner was asked to file reply to the show cause notice. Sufficient opportunity was given to him of being heard. After affording full opportunity and finding no merit in the arguments of the petitioner, the Society was directed to cancel the allotment.

4. The Society in its affidavit stated that only allocation had been made in petitioner's favour and not an allotment. After allocation a tripartite perpetual lease deed is executed by the Union of India as a paramount lessor. The respondent-Society is bound to comply with the directions issued by the Union of India, who is the paramount lessor of the land in question. The Society says that since the Union of India itself has turned clown the request of the petitioner and ordered cancellation of the allocation made in his favour, the society has no option but to treat it as final.

5. After having considered the submissions made at the bar, and on going through the record of the case, which was made available to us during the course of arguments. We are of the view that the petition is liable to for rejection.

6. The employees of the then Ministry of Rehabilitation and its subordinate officers formed a Society, which was duly registered with the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi in 1959. Initially the members of the Society were displaced persons from West Pakistan. Subsequently non-displaced persons were also enrolled as Members by the Society. 45 acres of land was allotted to the Society and agreement was entered into between the Government and the Society. In order to ensure that the Members of the Society utilise the plot for their own bonafide use and do not part with the same by way of sale etc., an agreement dated 10.8.1982 was entered into. Clause (d) of the Perpetual lease granted to the Society and clause XVII(C) provide:-

"XVII(C)"The sub-lessee will not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the said residential plot in any form or manner, benami or otherwise to a person who is not a member of the society."

7. The petitioner had submitted the following affidavit:-

"Affidavit of Shri L.R.Sharma s/o Shri Ram Lal Sharma r/o Sukhma Niwas, Somalia Delhi Palam Road, New Delhi & Temp.residing at Gurgaon (HR).

1.That I hold valid membership of Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Coop. House Building Society Ltd. in accordance with the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, Rules and Bye-laws. My membership number is 848. I have not undergone any disqualification in respect of my membership.

2.That I was employed from 1-9-50 to 30-11-82 in the Ministry of Rehabilitation Government of India.

3.That neither I nor my wife nor any of my dependent relations (including unmarried children) during the period of my membership of this Society has been a member of any other house building society/ Group housing society functioning in Delhi/New Delhi/ Delhi Cantt.

4.That neither I nor any of my dependent relations (including unmarried children) during the period of my membership of this Society has owned either in full or in part, on lease-hold or free-hold basis, any plot of land or a house, in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantt.

5.That I or my wife or my parents or any of my dependent relations have not acquired or been allotted any plot or house from the Department of Rehabilitation.

6.That I will inform within one month the said Society as well as the Lt-Governor, Delhi, if any plot of land or house is acquired by me or my wife or any of my dependent relations, including unmarried children.

7.That neither I nor my wife is a member of Hindu Undivided family which owns either in full or in part, on leasehold or free-hold basis, any plot of land or a house in Delhi/New Delhi/Delhi Cantt. 8.That I am a bonafide resident in the Union Territory of Delhi.

9.That I have not entered into any oral of written agreement for sale/transfer of plot allocated to me in any manner whatsoever to any person(s)

DEPONENT.

VERIFICATION:

I, the above said L.R. Sharma do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above paras are correct and true to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been concealed or suppressed.

Verified at Delhi on this 28th day of Feb., 1991.

DEPONENT"

8. When it came to the notice of respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner had violated the terms by entering into an agreement of sale on 25.1.1993 with Shri S.K. Behl for consideration, following show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioner on 28.11.1994:-

"It has been brought to the notice of this office that Shri L.R.Sharma, a member of the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees Co-op. House Building Society has

i)entered into an agreement of sale on 25.1.93 with Shri S.K.Bahl, Property Agent, r/o K.I/138, EPDP Colony, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi for the sale of his plot No.A/286, Shivalik, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.11 lakhs.

ii)jointly with Shri S.K.Bahl agreed and put this deal across to one Shri G.SJohar, r/o C.l/70,Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi at an agreed price of Rs.26 lakh and received the following payments:-

a)Cash Rs.75,000/-

b) A/c payee cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Shri L.R.Sharma.

c)A/c.payee cheque of Rs.50,000/- in favour of Shri S.K.Bahl.

iii)received Rs.25,000/- through his booking agent.

iv)signed an additional agreement on 28.1.94 with Shri S.K.Bahl and received a sum of Rs.50,000/- in addition to the amounts already received by him directly or through his agent/confirming seller Shri S.K.Bahl. The wife of Shri L.R.Sharma stood witness in this additional agreement.

2. In this connection, attention of Shri L.R.Sharma is drawn to a public notice which appeared in Hindustan Times on 17th June, 94 of which photo copy is enclosed.

3.The bye-laws of the said Society stipulate that the allotment of plots to its members is for their own use only. The agreement between the Government and the Society dated 10.8.82 also stipulates that 'Sub-lessee will not sell, transfer, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the residential plot in any form or manner, benami or otherwise, to a person who is not a member of the Society.'

4.By entering into an agreement to sell his plot, Shri L.R.Sharma has committed a breach of the terms and conditions of land allotment for which the allotment of land in his favour is liable to be cancelled. However, to afford an opportunity to Shri L.R.Sharma, he is hereby called upon to show cause as to why the plot allotted to him by the said Society should not be cancelled. Reply to this show cause notice should reach this office within one month from the date of issue.

Sd/-       

28.11.94       (C.P.Katyal)      Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer."

9. To the aforementioned show cause notice the following reply was submitted by the petitioner on 30.11.1994: -

"I am in receipt of your letter No.15(5)/92-SS dated 28.11.94 and to inform you that the position stated by Shri G.S.Johar, is baseless and incorrect. I have no dealing with him and the advt. dated 17.6.94 has got no base and in case he has any grudge with Shri S.K.Bahl he can deal with him directly. Shri Bahl has already withdrawn his complaint and the same is on the record of the office. I, therefore, in view of the position explained above, I request that the sub lease may please be issued immediately as the same has been delayed very much and my heart surgery recommended by C.G.H.S. and the AIIMS New Delhi is being delayed at the cost of my life and the necessary papers already submitted to the department.

Thanks,

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-       

(L.R.Sharma)"

10. After receipt of the aforementioned reply, fresh show cause notice was served upon the petitioner, which reads:-

"This is with reference to the letter dated 30.11.94 of Shri L.R.Sharma, a member of the Rehabilitation Ministry Employees' Cooperative House Building Society having membership No.848 in reply to this office Show Cause Notice of even dated 28.11.94.

It is seen from the reply of Mr.L.R.Sharma that he has not answered the specific paras (i) to (iv) of the show cause notice. He has not admitted or denied the point that he has entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the plot allotted to him (Plot No.A/286) by the said Society with Shri S.K. Bahl, property agent, r/o K-I/138, EPDP Colony, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi for a consideration of Rs.22 lakhs. Shri L.R.Sharma has also not admitted or denied his having put this deal across to one Shri G.S.Johar r/o C-I, Greater Kailash Part-I, New Delhi at an agreed price of Rs.26 lakhs. Shri L.R.Sharma has not admitted or denied having received various payments as mentioned in the show cause notice of 28th November, 1994. A photo copy each of the agreement dated 25.1.93 and additional agreement dated 28.1.94 along with photocopies of the receipts are enclosed herewith.

Shri L.R.Sharma is again hereby called upon to admit or deny these charges of breach of the terms and conditions failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in the matter.

Sd/-      

13.02.95        (C.P.Katyal)        Settlement Officer-cum-Managing Officer."

11. In reply to the second show cause notice, the petitioner sent reply on 25.2.1995, which was received on 6.3.1995 in the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which reads:-

"I am in receipt of your letter No.RD/SW/15(5)/92-SS/D dated 13/2/1993 received on 17.2.95 that the position has already been explained in my letter dated 30.11.94 and I once again confirm the same. I have no dealing with Shri Johar and Shri S.K.Bahl has already withdrawn his complaint and the withdrawal letter is on the file.

2. The case is pending since August, 1990. I request the office to please issue the sub lease at an early date.

Thanking

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-       

Dated-25/2/95       (L.R.Sharma)"

12. After the petitioner had been duly served with the aforementioned two show cause notices, taking note the petitioner's stand and also the complaints coupled with various agreements attached to the complaints, respondent No.1 proceeded to send communication (anncxure-P.4) dated 29.11.95 observing that prima facie documentary evidence revealed that the petitioner had entered into a deal with respect to the plot allotted to him with different parties and thus he had violated the bye-laws of the society, which stipulate that allotment of plot to its members is for their own use only.

13. In the affidavit of Shri Surjit Singh with respect to the stand taken by the petitioner that complainant Shri S.K.Bahl has withdrawn his complaint, it is stated:-

"It is no ground for the petitioner to contend that the complainant Shri S.K.Bahl had withdrawn the complaint against him. Even alter withdrawing the complaint the fact remains that Shri Sharma violated the terms of perpetual lease/agreement concluded between the lessee society and Government of India of which the petitioner is a member.

Shri S.K.Behl has again complained to the Government of India to the effect that he had purchased plot No.A-286 from Shri L.R.Sharma against his allotment and had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to Shri Sharma. He has also mentioned that the total sale price was settled at Rs.22,00,000/- and balance amount of Rs.20,50,000/- was to be paid at the time of handing over the lease papers, and relevant document with the physical possession of the plot. A copy of the complaint dated 22.5.1998 is annexed at Annexure-R.6."

14. For our perusal, original record was also made available. We have also gone through the same. Before taking decision by respondents 1 and 2, due opportunity was allowed to the petitioner. On the point that deal was struck with Shri S.K.Bahl or subsequently with other person, the petitioner's case is that the same did not materialise or in any case the complaints were withdrawn. The petitioner has not denied the execution of the agreement with the two intended transferees or the receipt of money as mentioned in the show cause notice. This factor alone would amount to entering into some deal, which would have the effect of violating the terms of the agreement entered into between the society and the Government. Plots are meant for bonafide users and not for persons who intended to speculate. Pursuant to the show cause notice, reply was filed, which was duly considered and decision was taken, which was a possible decision, which could be taken on the facts of the case. There was no allotment made. Only allocation had been made. In such circumstances, no interference is called since no right stood vested in the petitioner on mere allocation, which was subject only to certain conditions. Respondent No.2 found as a matter of fact that conditions have been violated. Admittedly, neither allotment was made, nor possession delivered. Thus no right vested in the petitioner.

15. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.