Assoc. Of East Pakistan Displaced ... vs Dda And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1501 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the non-allotment of surplus plots to certain persons under the EPDP Rehabilitation Scheme of the Government of India and have impugned the action of the respondents in auctioning said surplus plots which are claimed to be meant for allotment to declared eligible persons.

2. Petitioner No.1 is an association claiming to represent the interest of various persons who are seeking allotment. Petitioner No.1, association, was founded by persons who were displaced from East Pakistan and for whose benefit Rehabilitation Scheme was formulated by respondent No.2. In terms of the scheme, on 25th February, 1997, land was placed at the disposal of respondent No.1, D.D.A. at Chittranjan Park, New Delhi for development of 714 plots for allotment to eligible displaced persons. It is stated that the allotment was to be carried out by respondent No.1 during 1989-93. It is further stated that about 16-18 plots remained surplus which had to be dealt with in terms of instructions of respondent No.2 contained in the letter dated 9th April, 1985. The said letter reads as under:-

"Ministry of Works and Housing

         (Lands Division)

New Delhi, the 9th April, 1985

To The Vice Chairman

Delhi Development Authority

Vikas Minar

I.P. Estate

New Delhi-110002

SUBJECT: Allotment of additional plots to the

East Pakistan Displaced persons declared

eligible for allotment of plots in Delhi.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to DDA's Resolution No. 155 dated 23rd September, 1983 on the above subject and to state that it has been decided that 714 plots as mentioned in the said Resolution may be allotted to the eligible displaced persons from East Pakistan. The land in question has been handed over by the Department of Rehabilitation to the DDA on 25th February, 1977. The allotment of plots to the eligible displaced persons as per the list enclosed shall be made by the Delhi Development Authority on their usual terms and conditions after obtaining the necessary affidavits from the eligible persons about their continuing to be eligible for these allotments.

2. The rate to be charged for allotment of these plots shall be worked out as per the following formula:-

(i) The cost of acquisition for the entire land will be Rs. 5/- per sq. yd.

(ii) The development cost for the land already developed will be at the rate of Rs. 24.20 per sq. yd.

(iii) For the remaining area the cost of development will be the actual development cost incurred by the DDA.

(iv) The total cost of development for the entire area will be distributed among the 714 allottees equally on no-profit, no-loss basis.

3. If out of the 714 eligible applicants mentioned in the enclosed list, there are any drop outs or any of them have ceased to be eligible, nos, the plots left out due to these drop outs and ineligible persons, shall be disposed of in a manner to be decided by Government later. The DDA shall, after the allotment, intimate to this Ministry the number of plots left out in this regard.

4. This issues with the approval of Finance Division vide their U.O. No. FD(I)/84/2051 dated 7.1.1985.

Yours faithfully,

Encl.:a.a.

(N. Rajgopalan)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Copy to:-

1. Land & Development Officer, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi. He may examine the representation received from other displaced persons for inclusion in the list for allotment and decide their eligibility. The list of such eligible persons may be kept ready to be considered after the DDA intimates any vacancies from among the list forwarded to them.

2. Department of Rehabilitation, Jaisalmer House, New Delhi.

3. Finance Division (Lands Unit) with reference to their U.O. No. mentioned above.

4. PS to HM/Ps to Secretary

5. Deputy Secretary (DD), Min. of Works and Housing.

(N, Rajagopalan)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India."

3. It is stated that 17 person were found eligible for allotment of the surplus plots as per Annexure-B and the no-objection was given by the Rehabilitation Division of the Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 29th April, 1994 for allotment of these plots to eligible persons. The said letter reads as under:-

"No.2(1)/94-S

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar

Ministry of Home Affairs/Griha Mantralaya

Rehabilitation          Division/Purarwas

Rehabilitation

Prabhag(Bandobast)

*****

Jaisalmer House, Man Singh Road,   

New Delhi, dated 29th April, 1994 

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Applications received from persons originally claiming to be migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan(now Bangladesh)

"The undersigned is directed to refer to the communications noted in the margin O.M. No.J/13030/5/83-L&D/II A dt. 24.2.94, D.O. No. J/13030/5/83-L&D/II A dt. 7.4.94, O.M. No. J/13030/5/83-L&D/II A dt. 18.4.94 from Ministry of Urban Development on the above subject and to furnish the comments of this Ministry in the matter:-

(i) This Ministry has no objection to the allotment of plots to be Pre-1964 migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan provided plots are available. Since the Post-1964 migrants are not covered under the Chittranjan Park Scheme these applications may not be considered.

(ii) In the case of Pre-1964 migrants, it should be ensured that they are genuine migrants from erstwhile East Pakistan who have come to India during the period in question.

(iii) They may be asked to produce necessary documentary proof and also to file affidavits to the effect.

(iv) The other eligibility criteria as laid down in the original scheme may also be adhered to.

(v) It may be mentioned here that the work relating to this scheme was transferred to M/o Urban Development, Land & Development Office in 1981, hence it is up to that Ministry to take a decision in the matter, keeping the norms of the scheme in mind.

The application received in this Ministry the communications quoted above are returned herewith.

(P.T. CHACKOCHAN)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

To Shri R. Bannerji)

Director (DD)

M/o Urban Development

Nirman Bhavan"

4. Since the allotment was not made, representations were made by the petitioners. However, on 18th May, 1998, the petitioners came to know about an advertisement dated 29th April, 1998 published in the Times of India regarding auction of the aforesaid surplus plots and aggrieved by the same, filed the writ petition for quashing of the auction and for allotment of surplus plots detailed in Annexure-C to the eligible persons as per the list of eligible person Annexure-B.

5. On 22nd May, 1998, when the petition was listed for admission, an interim order was passed. In terms thereof, it was directed that the respondents could proceed further with the proposed auction but the bids offered in the auction would not be confirmed.

6. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.2, U.O.I., it is stated that the scheme for allotment of plots in Chittaranjan Park was announced in terms of the press note dated 14th January, 1977 and the last date for receipt of applications was 31st March, 1977. 794 applications were found eligible out of applications received for allotment. 80 plots were allotted by the Department of Rehabilitation and the remaining 714 cases were transferred to the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment for further action in 1981. After screening of these applications, the same were transferred to respondent No.1 vide office letter dated 9th April, 1985 to make allotments to eligible applicants. Respondent No.1 carved out 702 plots and made allotments to 686 applicants out of 714 cases referred to above and 28 persons were not found to be eligible on account of various reasons. Subsequently, DDA vide its letter dated 25th May, 1995 stated that after the allotment of the plots of eligible persons who fulfilll the criteria of allotment, they were still left with 16 surplus plots.

7. It is further stated that at no stage were 17 persons found eligible as claimed in the writ petition. On the other hand, representations were received from various persons to the effect that they could not make applications within time as they were not aware of press note issued in 1977. Some persons stated that their applications were rejected on minor grounds. In view of the above, a list of all these 17 persons, along with the list of 61 persons, were sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs to apprise them of the position and to seek their advice whether it would be appropriate to consider these cases after the lapse of a long period of time since the scheme was introduced in 1977. The Ministry of Home Affairs vide O.M. dated 29th April, 1994 expressed that it had no objection but since the work relating to the scheme was transferred to the Ministry of Urban Development in 1981, it was open to the said Ministry to take a decision in the matter. Thus, it is stated that only the opinion of the Ministry was sent without any final decision being taken.

8. It is also stated that the matter was discussed at length after the advice of Ministry of Home Affairs and it was decided that since the displaced persons had merged with the national mainstream long time back, it would not be appropriate to allot these 16 plots to such persons at the stage and it was best to dispose of these plots through an open auction and credit the sale proceeds to the Consolidated Fund of India treating the East Pakistan Displaced Persons Scheme as closed.

9. The stand of respondent No.1 is to the same effect and it is stated that circular dated 9th April, 1985 itself stipulated that the plots left out due to drop outs and ineligible persons shall be disposed of in a manner to be decided by the Government later. It is thus stated that there were no instructions contained in the letter dated 9th April, 1985 to consider for allotment the persons found eligible subsequently on receipt of further representations. It is also stated that respondent No.1 never received any instructions from the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment for allotment of the plots in question to these persons and that the scheme was closed by the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment (Land Division ) vide letter dated 25th September, 1997 and the surplus plots were directed to be auctioned.

10. Learned Counsel for the respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in CW No. 3779/96, P.R. Dutta Gupta v. U.O.I and Anr. decided on 13/2/2001 dealing with the claim of such cases. The issue of availability of 16 plots was discussed and it was noted that a decision had been taken by the U.O.I not to allot any plot out of these 16 plots to any of the aspirants but rather have a public auction for the same. Reference has been made to the interim order passed in the present writ petition in the said order.

11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

12. It is an undisputed position that it is not a case where the original eligible applicants have been left out. All the persons found eligible were allotted plots. However, some persons failed to apply under the scheme or their applications were rejected which were sought to be rectified subsequently.

13. The strong reliance placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners on the letter dated 9th April, 1985 of the Ministry of Works and Housing to contend that the letter was endorsed to the L&DO office with the endorsement that the representations of such persons who were found eligible should be kept ready to be considered by the DDA after the DDA intimates any vacancies, is misplaced. This is so as para 3 of the said letter is clear that in case any plot is available due to drop outs and ineligible persons, the manner of disposal of these plots was to be decided by the Government. Thus, no decision could be said to have been taken to allot these plots.

14. Similarly, the reading of the letter dated 29th April, 1994 for the Ministry of Home Affairs by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is contrary to the clear terms of the letter. The Ministry has only stated that it had no objection to the allotment of the plots provided they are available but in para V, it is clearly stated that the work relating to the scheme was transferred to the Ministry of Urban Development and hence it is open to that Ministry to take the decision in the matter, keeping the norms of the scheme in mind. The applications received were thus returned with the said communication to the Ministry of Urban Development.

15. The claim made on behalf of such persons was considered but a conscious decision was taken by the concerned Ministry/respondent that it will not be appropriate to allot these plots to those persons who either did not apply under the scheme or submitted incomplete forms, resulting tin the names being declared as ineligible. It was further found that the purpose of the scheme had been served by rehabilitation of such persons who had merged with the national mainstream and it would not be appropriate now to make allotment of plots to these persons and it was best to auction plots. In my considered view, no infirmity can be found with this decision.

16. In the absence of any decision having been taken to allot plots in favor of these persons, no right can be stated to have been infringed of such persons. On the other hand, a fair and reasonable decision has been taken, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case to auction plots in question and credit the sale proceeds to the Consolidated Fund of India. The scheme was closed vide letter dated 25th September, 1997 and the plots were decided to be auctioned.

17. In view of the aforesaid, I find no merit in the writ petition.

Dismissed.

CM 6104/98

Dismissed.

Interim order dated 2nd May, 1998 stands vacated.