Delhi High Court
Gopal vs Dda on 11 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 102 (2003) DLT 819
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the
parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The land owned by the petitioner was acquired in
1978-80 and on an application for alternative plot in
lieu of the acquisition, the case of the petitioner was
recommended on 27/11/1987 for said allotment of
alternative plot in village Bhorgarh, Delhi of 250 sq.
yds. The allotment letter was issued by the DDA on
14/1/1993 allotting plot No. 11, Sector B-4, Pocket-4,
measuring 209 sq. metres in Narela Residential Scheme.
Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount
within time, this allotment was cancelled but on
representation of the petitioner, allotment was
restored on 12/3/1997. The petitioner deposited the
full amount on 8/8/1997 and submitted the requisite
documents on 11/6/1997. The possession was yet to be
handed-over.
4. A letter was received by the respondent on
11/7/1997 from one Dr. K.S. Solanki, stating that the
property had been sold by the petitioner on Power of
Attorney basis to him and requested that the property
should be expeditiously transferred in favor of the
petitioner so that Dr. Solanki could enjoy the property.
The respondent, taking cognizance of the said letter,
issued a show cause notice to the petitioner dated
1/10/1997, alleging that the petitioner had violated
Clause 4(v) of the allotment letter while seeking
restoration. The said clause is as under:-
"If it is discovered at any stage that you
have secured allotment by suppression of any
fact or any mis-statement, misrepresentation,
fraud or incorrect information the allotment
will be considered to be void ab initio and
you shall not be entitled to any compensation
whatsoever, nor to the return of an premium
paid by you."
5. Simultaneously, the respondent also called upon
Dr. Solanki to appear before the DDA. The petitioner
filed reply dated 21/10/1997, refuting the allegations.
However, the petitioner did not appear personally
before the respondent, as stated by the respondent. It
may be noted that the said Dr. Solanki never appeared
before the respondent despite repeated reminders.
6. A final show cause notice dated 31/7/1998 was
sent to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to
attend the office of the respondent, failing which
action for cancellation of plot would be initiated. On
28/9/1998, the said Dr. Solanki stated that his disputes
with the petitioner had been resolved and that he would
like to withdraw the letter dated 11/7/1997. The
allotment in favor of the petitioner was cancelled on
7/10/1998.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by
learned Counsel for the parties.
8. It is not in dispute that after the restoration
of allotment of the petitioner, the petitioner
deposited he amount and completed the necessary
formalities. The only reason why the plot of the
petitioner has been cancelled is the complaint sent by
one Dr. Solanki. No documents have been filed along
with the counter affidavit submitted by Dr. Solanki. It
appears that only letter dated 11/7/1997 has been acted
upon. In view of the subsequent letter dated 28/8/1998
Dr. Solanki stated that disputes had been resolved but a
view has been taken that there is violation of the
terms of the compromise by the respondent.
9. The clause sought to be relied in the terms of
allotment only requires that the allotment should not
be procured by any mis-statement, mis-representation,
fraud or incorrect information. In my considered view,
no allotment has been sought by violation of any terms
of the allotment letter. In fact, the allotment was
made in 1993 and was only restored in 1997. Further,
the said Dr. Solanki never even came forthwith before
the respondent to substantiate his allegations but on
the other hand, withdrew even the said letter. In my
considered view, it would not be open to the respondent
to act merely on such a letter when the same has been
refuted by the petitioner in writing and the complaint
has also been subsequently withdrawn by Dr. Solanki.
10. Interestingly, the complaint was only of alleged
sale of the plot on Power of Attorney basis and the
respondent itself has recognised such sales and has
been converting properties into freehold at request of
such attorney holders.
11. A writ of Mandamus is issued, quashing the order
of cancellation dated 7/1/1998. The respondent is
directed to hand-over possession of the plot allotted
to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from
today.
12. Taking into consideration the fact that the
petitioner has been deprived of the enjoyment of the
plot for the last five years despite having deposited
the full amount, the petitioner shall be entitled to
cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
