Bhola Datt Sharma vs Sh.G.K.Marwah & Anr.
1998 Latest Caselaw 225 Del

JUDGMENT

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition seeking a direction against the respondent-DDA to allot a plot No.A-19, Kalkaji Extension Residential Scheme, admeasuring 160 Sq.mtrs. to the petitioner at the rate prevalent in the year 1978 and the possession of the same to be given to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had initially applied for allotment of alternative plot under the scheme of "Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1961", which was rejected by the Delhi Administration. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition bearing No.C.W.P.No. 1478/84, which was decided on 19.9.1984. It would be worthwhile to re-produce the order passed by the Division Bench while disposing of the said writ petition.

"A notice to show cause was issued in this petition. As it is a covered case, we issue Rule D.B. and proceed to decide the matter. In view of the judgment in Ram Narain Vs. Union of India C.w.612/82 decided on 22nd April, 1983 and other connected writs, this petition is to be allowed and it has to be held that the petitioner is entitled to get the plot in accordance with the policy. The petitioner wants the size of the plot to be specified, but we find that we cannot do this, as it depends on the policy and availability of the plot. So, a plot should be allotted to the petitioner as has to be allotted in accordance with the policy. An appropriate writ is issued. Parties to bear their own costs."

3. As the plot was not allotted to the petitioner despite the directions given in C.W. No.1478/84, the petitioner filed CCP.85/85 titled Bhola Dutt Vs.Secretary Land & Building and Anr. The said CCP was disposed of by the Division Bench passing the following order.

"We note that the plot No. is A-19, Kalkaji Extension Residential Scheme and measures 160 Sq.mtrs. This petition has now to be disposed of as the actual allotment of the plot will depend on what order is passed by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition. If there is dispute about the rate i.e. price that can be raised later on. The petition is disposed of accordingly."

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA that DDA had not been imp leaded as a party either in C.W.1478/84 or in CCP. No.85/85. It is common ground that the SLP filed by the Delhi Administration was dismissed on 5.9.1991. The petitioner was again constrained to file the present CCP on 7.2.1992, since the plot was neither allotted to him nor was possession handed over, despite the judgment having become final after dismissal of the S.L.P.

It is now stated before me that pursuance to the notice issued, observations made and directions given from time to time in the CCP, the respondent-DDA allotted a plot to the petitioner on 9.1.1996 and issued a demand letter bearing No.F.27 10892/L&B (R) 612, demanding payment @ Rs.4170.31 per Sq.mtr. of premium totalling Rs.6,67,250/-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner perforce with a view to avoid complications deposited the amount demanded. The relief now sought by the petitioner in the present C.M.No.694/96 moved in the CCP as well as in the contempt petition, is for a direction to respondent-DDA to charge at the rate prevalent in the year 1979 and not at the rate of Rs.4170.31 Sq.mtr., the applicable rate on the date of issuance of the demand letter. Learned senior counsel for respondent, Mr.Ravinder Sethi objects to the reliefs sought being considered in the contempt petition, being based on a separate cause of action. This is apart from the respondent's contention that the rate charged is in accordance with the policy.

5. The short question to be considered by me is Whether in the present contempt petition, the land rate to be charged as per policy by the respondent-DDA for the plot in question should be adjudicated upon and determined?

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.S.Vashist, has invited reference to CCP. No.80/85 titled Smt.Ramo Devi Vs. The Secretary Land & Building and Ors., wherein the Division Bench of this Court in a contempt petition considered the question and directed that the DDA should offer the plot at the reduced calculation. Reference was also invited to CCP.No.198/86 titled Smt.Ramo Devi Vs. Additional Commissioner (Land) and Ors., where again a Division Bench recorded the statement of respondent's counsel that the petitioner therein would be charged at the rate prevalent in the year 1979. Learned counsel also seeks to draw support from the order passed on 21.11.1995, while disposing of the petitioner's contempt petition No.85/85 viz. "..............If there is dispute about the rate i.e. price that can be raised later on. The petition is disposed of accordingly."

6. Learned counsel submits that the Division Bench specifically directed that if there was a dispute about the rate/price that can be raised later on. Learned counsel, therefore, argues that this Court should proceed to determine the rate to be charged.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is correct in his submission to the extent that Division Bench of this Court, in the cited contempt cases considered the question of the rate to be charged and passed directions therefor. It cannot, however, be said that in the cited cases, any objection was raised for determination of rates in contempt jurisdiction. The orders in the cited case, do not show that any such objection was raised or considered. Besides, I am not persuaded to determine the question of rate in the exercise of contempt jurisdiction in the instant case. The order passed in the writ petition No.1478/84 was that the petitioner is entitled to get the plot in accordance with the policy. The Division Bench while disposing of the writ petition even refrained from specifying the size of the plot and observed that it all depends on the policy and availability of the plot. This being the situation it would be seen that while granting the substantive relief to the petitioner, Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition did not deem it fit and proper to even decide the size of the plot and left the same on the policy of the respondent and availability of the plot. The question to my mind whether the petitioner is entitled to get the allotment at the rates of 1979, as contended by him or at the rates of 1995, as communicated by the respondent-DDA, has to be considered in sub stantive proceedings. I refrain to express any opinion on the question of entitlement of the petitioner to the rates as prevalent in the year 1979, as claimed by the petitioner, or otherwise. It would be for the petitioner to seek the reliefs now sought in C.M. No.694/94 & CCP.37/92 in appropriate writ or other proceedings. Considering that the plot in question has already been allotted and possession delivered to the petitioner on payment of the charges demanded, it is left open to the petitioner to seek substantive relief with regard to the applicability of rate and consequent refund, if any, in appropriate proceedings.

The contempt petition and C.M.694/94 stand disposed of accordingly.