Delhi High Court
Shri Joginder Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 24 July, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non allotment
of a plot by respondent DDA under the re-settlement
scheme prepared for residents of jhuggis of Sawan park
comprising of Khasra No.646, 649 and 650.
The project for re-settlement of such persons
was approved on 17.5.1985 and on 12.9.1988 the
petitioner was informed that the DDA had decided the
allot the plot at Wazirpur, Phase - IV, in lieu of
Sawan park measuring 32 square meters on perpetual
lease hold rights and were called upon to deposit the
amount. The petitioner in pursuance thereto deposited
the amount. A draw of lots was held on 25.11.1991 for
allotment of plots to 482 persons including the
petitioner.
2. The aforesaid draw was challenged in CW
No.4106/1991 and the said writ petition along with
similar other writ petitions were allowed in terms of
the judgment in Shiv Raj Singh and Others Vs. Delhi
Development Authority and Others 1993 III AD (DELHI)
563. This judgment was pronounced on 30.7.1993
directing that the allotment should be made to 650
persons.
A reading of the said judgment shows that the
controversy therein arose from the fact that DDA was
confining the scheme to weavers having jhuggi jhonpris
falling in the site of storm water drain and/or road,
which was not found to be valid by the Court. It was
further noted that though 914 persons had requisite
documents, demand cum allotment letters were issued to
650 persons. The fact that certain names were deleted
from the list was also found to be without giving the
reasonable opportunity to such persons. The conclusion
of the Division Bench in the said judgment is as under:
"13. On these basis second respondent says
he made actual survey and a format of survey was
devised in such a way so as to collect
information about the persons residing in the
cluster as on October 1990 and also giving
evidence of their residence prior to 1985. For
this purpose he required the residents during
survey to lead any kind of evidence of 1983 and
1989. It is stated that survey was conducted in
the month of October 1990 after making advance
public announcements giving due notice to the
jhuggi dwellers. It would, therefore, appear
that it was a general notice and no individual
notices were sent to the petitioners. The
survey was not conducted by the second
respondent personally though he says it was done
under his supervision and various teams were
constituted for the purpose of survey which was
completed in three days. Without any further
verification the DDA accepted this report to the
prejudice of the petitioners. No notice was
given by DDA as to why the report of the second
respondent be not accepted and in fact the
petitioners say they were quite unaware of the
same. Second respondent is not a functionary of
the DDA and his report ipso facto could not have
been accepted. No reasons are forthcoming in
the counter affidavit filed by the DDA as to why
the names of the petitioners stood deleted from
the list of 482 persons prepared by the SDM when
they were similarly situated. DDA has not given
any answer to various discrepancies pointed out
by the petitioners in the list prepared by the
second respondent. We find there has been
substance in the submission of Mr. Dutt,
learned counsel for the petitioners, that
extraneous considerations went into play in
preparation of this list of 482 persons. The
impugned action of the DDA does not appear to us
to be either just, fair or reasonable. It
smacks of arbitrariness.
14. Thus, our conclusion is that the
project for resettlement of weavers in Sawan
Park was not confined to those weavers whose
jhuggis were affected on account of construction
of storm water drain/road passing through their
jhuggis. As we have seen above, even we accept
this contention of the DDA to be correct, those
jhuggi dwellers whose jhuggis were also affected
by the construction of storm water drain/road
were not included in the list of 482 persons.
As a matter of fact that project report and the
whole correspondence clearly show that all bona
fide weavers residing in jhuggi jhonpris in
Sawan Park prior to 1985 were to be resettled.
The names of the petitioners to whom
allotment-cum-demand letters had been issued and
who made payment in terms thereof could not have
been deleted without due notice to them, and as
a matter of fact the respondents have failed to
point out as to why the petitioners were not
entitled to the allotment as per the scheme and
the allotment-cum-demand letters issued to
them."
15. We will, therefore, allow the writ
petition and will quash the draw of lots held on
25November 1991for allotment of plots in
Wazirur Phase IV confined to 482persons. A
mandamus is issued to the first respodnent to
make allotment in the first instance to 650
persons who had been issued allotment-cum-demand
letters and who had made payment in terms
thereof. However, liberty is granted to the
first respondent to recheck that list after due
notice to all those persons falling in that list
of 650 persons on the basis of the scheme that
it was for resettleent of all the weavers livng
in jhuggi-jhopris in Sawan Park earlier to 1985
and that those weavers had not been allotted any
plot by the D.D.A., Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, or any other local authority in the Union
Territory of Delhi.
3. It is stated in the writ petition that a time
bound direction was given to comply with the orders and
are view petition filed by the respondent DDA has been
dismissed. Even the appeals filed against the same
were dismissed.
A draw was held on 25.11.1999 but the petitioner
was not included in the draw of lots. The petitioner
claims since there is no satisfactory response for the
non inclusion of the petitioner the petitioner filed
the present petition.
4. In the counter affidavit filed by the
respondents the reason for non inclusion of the name of
the petitioner is stated. It is stated that the
petitioner was resident of Sawan Park weavers colony
not in his own right but as a member of the family of
his father Shri Chander Pal. The name of the
petitioner exists in the ration card pertaining to the
family head i.e. Shri Chander Pal, father. It is
stated that the petitioner concealed this fact from the
respondent DDA and that is why earlier the petitioner
was considered as entitled to a separate plot. It is
further stated that in pursuance to the directions
given by the Division Bench of this Court in Shiv Raj
Singh's case (supra) a survey was carried out and the
petitioner's name was found as one of the persons who
were residents of the colony. However, on scrutiny of
document sit would found that the ration card of the
petitioner was under the head of Shri Chander Pal
against the jhuggi occupied by Shri Chander Pal and his
family including the petitioner and allotment has
already been made. Since the said allotment has been
made it is stated that any other member of the family
of Shri Chander Pal who is occupying the jhuggi in the
weavers colony is not entitled to a separate allotment.
The counter affidavit was filed on 27.4.2002 but
no rejoinder has been filed to the same. I have heard the learned counsel for the
parties.
5. It is apparent that the rights of residents of
weavers colony at Sawan Park was determined in terms of
the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Shiv Raj
Singh's case (supra) and to that extent the matter in
controversy is res integra. The direction issued by
the Division Bench clearly held that all the residents
of Sawan Park colony would be entitled to it and the
same would not be restricted to any particular part of
the colony. It was in these circumstances that the
draw which was held earlier limited to 482 persons was
quashed. A complete list was to be drawn up and a
mandamus was issued to make allotment in the first
instance to 650 persons who had already issued
allotment cum demand letter and had made payments in
terms thereof. The petitioner thus fell within this
category.
6. However, a further direction was also passed
giving liberty to the DDA to re-check the list after
due notice to all these persons falling in the list of
650 persons on the basis of the scheme which was held
to be for re-settlement of all the weavers.
Counter affidavit filed by the respondents shows
that it is in pursuance to this direction that a
verification was carried out. It is not disputed that
the petitioner was resident of the colony but at the
stage when the documents were called for verification
it was found that the petitioner was a member of the
family of Shri Chander Pal - his father and thusonly
Shri Chander Pal would be entitled to the alternative
plot. It is nobody's case that each and every person
of the family had to be issued separate allotment. It
is further stated that an allotment had been made to
Shri Chander Pal, father of the petitioner. This in
lieu of jhuggi in Sawan Park. It has been stated in
the counter affidavit that the petitioner has not
disclosed that he was a member of the family of his
father Shri Chander Pal which came to light on
verification from the ration card.
7. I am of the considered view that since Shri
Chander Pal has already been allotted a plot and the
petitioner formed part of the family of Shri Chander
Pal as his name was also shown in the ration card, the
petitioner would not be entitled to the allotment of a
separate plot.
8. The petitioner will however be entitled to the
refund of the amount deposited by him in pursuance to
the allotment cum demand letter issued in 1988. The
payment be made to the petitioner within a period of
two months from today, if not already made.
9. Writ petition is dismissed with the aforesaid
direction leaving the parties to bear their own cost.
