Sh. Sheo Ram And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1402 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Writ petitioners in the captioned petitions are aggrieved by the fact that inspite of making full payment of the premium demanded by DDA, possession of the plots allotted to them at a draw of lots held by DDA is not being handed over.

2.All the petitioners were recommended by the Land and Building Department of Government of NCT, Delhi to be allotted a residential plot by the DDA as per the Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land Policy,1961 which entitled the owner of agricultural lands, whose land was acquired for planned development of Delhi to be considered for allotment of a residential plot.

3.Acting under the recommendations of Land and Building Department, Government of NCT, Delhi, DDA included the names of the petitioners at a draw of lots. Writ petitioners of W.P(C)11696/04 were allotted plot No.32, Pocket 7, Sector 25, Rohini Residential Scheme. Demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to these petitioners on 4.7.2003. These petitioners deposited the amount demanded. Petitioner of W.P(C) 14169/04 was likewise allotted plot no.33 in Pocket 7, Sector 25, Rohini Residential Scheme. He to was issued a demand-cum-allotment letter on 4.7.2003. He paid the full premium as demanded. Likewise, petitioner of W.P(C) 17335/04 was allotted plot No.29, Pocket 7, Sector 25, Rohini Residential Scheme vide demand-cum-allotment letter dated 4.7.200. She paid the premium demanded.

4.Since, inspite of the payment of complete premium demanded, possession of the allotted plot was not being handed over, petitioners filed the present petition praying that DDA be directed to hand over possession of the plot allotted to them and execute the necessary conveyance deed in favor of the petitioners.

5.defense of the DDA as per the counter affidavit filed is that 38 plots in Sector 25, Pocket 7, Rohini were not meant for being allotted by draw of lots under category of alternative allotment. Plots in Sector 25, Pocket 7 were meant for auction. Some officers of DDA connived to have 38 plots included at a draw of lots. Petitioners came to be allotted 3 plots out of said 38. Possession was not being handed over as these plots were never meant to be allotted by draw of lots at the pre-determined raes.

6.Since pleadings of the DDA were not supported by documents and it could not be ascertained as to what had actually transpired, directions were issued to DDA to produce the records. Records were produced at the hearing held on 29.11.2004 Matter was reserved by me to study the record which was produced.

7. Record reflects a rather sorry state of affairs in the internal working of the DDA.

8.Record would reveal that as far back as 24.7.1990, Screening Committee of the DDA approved the lay out plan of Pocket 7, Sector 25, Rohini, Phase-III. Approved lay out plan as finalised by the Screening Committee of DDA required 104 plots having size 119 sq.mt, each to be carved out. Development work was completed somewhere in the year 1994 to 1995, but somehow the plots remained un-disposed.

9. Development work which was carried out, included laying of sewer lines.

10. Record shows that the 104 plots to be carved out were to be sold by DDA and not transferred at pre-determined rates.

11.On 3.2.2003, Sh.Vijay Risbud, Director(Planning), on his own, changed the lay out plan. As per the changed lay out, he carved out 38 plots, each having 330 sq.mt area in Pocket 7, Sector 25. He changed the lay out so as to have frontage of each plot on a 12 mt wide road. As a result of what he did, certain sewer lines which had already been laid became redundant. Some had to be retained and some required fresh laying.

12.This came to the notice of the Vice Chairman, DDA, who, to my mind, should have taken immediate cognizance of what was done by Vijay Risbud, Commissioner (Planning). Rather than taking Sh.Vijay Risbud to task, Vice Chairman, DDA required him to justitfy his action. On 25.2.2003, Vijay Risbud put the following note on the file:-

''No.PS/Commr. (Plg.)/2003/23.Dated 25th February, 2003 As per the delegation of powers HOD (Planning) is delegated with powers for approval of layout plans, modifications in layout plans. Copy of the order is enclosed for ready reference.

The letter of CVO dated 13.11.2002 states that any modification in layout plan be placed before the Screening committee to ensure greater transparency and collective responsibility. All changes made even by Screening Committee should be intimated to Vigilance Department.

I spoke to Vice-Chairman. I feel that whenever there is any change of use i.e remunerative to less remunerative i.e. from commercial to any other use, then only the cases be put up to Screening Committee and these changes be intimated to Vigilance Branch. For modifications within the same use, sub-division, approval of layout plans of building department would continue as per delegated powers. We can bring before the Screening Committee all such modifications and approvals for favor of information.

sd/-(Vijay Risbud) Commissioner (Planning)

13.Processing the note, Vice Chairman, DDA wrote on the file that orders of the Lt .Governor passed on the file when similar thing was done by Vijay Risbud and 2 residential plots were carved out from site of a local establishing centre should be adhered to. Reference to the said order of the Lt.Governor is to be found in a letter dated 13.10.2002 addressed to Sh. Vijay Risbud at page C/37 of the file produced which directs that in future, Screening Committee alone would be empowered to effect changes in lay out plans.

14. Sh.Vijay Risbud justified his action by stating that power was delegated to him to accord approval for modification to the lay out plans.

15.Record shows that decision of Sh.Vijay Risbud to change the lay out plan required additional work to be carried out and certain existing sewer lines to be abandoned. Matter was processed to determine what was to be the final expenditure which would be incurred. Chief Engineer (Rohini) recorded that approximately Rs. 7 lakhs would be required to lay fresh sewer lines.

16. Letter of the Chief Engineer (Rohini) dated 18.3.2004 records as under :-

''No.CE(R)2(55)85/Vol.15/562 Dated: 18.3.2004

Sub: Allotment of alternative plots in Pocket-7, Sector-25, Rohini, Phase-III.

The layout plan of Pocket-7, Sector-25, Rohini, Phase-III was approved during Screening Committee Meeting held on 24.7.1990. As per this plan, it was proposed to develop 104 plots of size 119 sq.m each. The development was completed in the year 1994-

5 but somehow these plots remained undisposed. Subsequently, when there was pressure to expedite the allotment of alternative plots, the layout plan was revised by the Commissioner (Planning) proposing the plots as per details given below:-

S.No. Plot Size Area Nos.

1.11.5x 28.7 M 330 sqm. 20 2.10.73x30.75M 330sqm. 18

As per this revised layout plan, CLD has already allotted the plot and in certain cases lease deeds have also been issued.

Due to the above change in the layout plan, it was worked out by Chief Engineer(Rohini) that there will be an infructuous expenditure to the tune of Rs. 7 lacs in making additions/alterations in the services already laid. In view of these observations, all further dealings have been stopped. Some of the allottees who have been allotted the plots as per the revised layout plan have made complaint to this office that they have made the entire payment but no possession/lease deed papers are beign issued by the Lands Wing. Copies of these complaints are enclosed herewith for ready reference.

In view of above, CLD is requested to look into the matter personally and sort out the issue immediately. It is felt that at this late stage,there is no alternative excet to develop the area as per the revised layout plan for which the approval of competent authority may be obtained and conveyed to this office. A copy of the plan on the basis of which the allotment has been made is enclosed herewith.

Sd/-

(S.C.Aggarwal)

Chief Engineer(Rohini)''

17. Immediately after receipt of the information from the Chief Engineer (Rohini), a note was put up on the file by Sh. Davinder Bhushan Gupta, Principal Commissioner. The note records as under:-

''This is a case regarding change of layout plan in Rohini Sector 25, Pkt.7. A meeting was taken by the undersigned to review the position whether change in the layout plan was done on administrative grounds or there is a possibility of some kind of mal-ractices to give locational advantages to certain people. During discussions, it came out that the site for alternative allotment was not on the road side earlier and these alternative plots were located inside the pocket. The earlier layout plan was a proved by the Screening Committee dated 24/7/90. After a gap of approx.12-1/2 years for no clear reason a decision was taken at the level of Commissioner(Planning) to change the layout plan and put all the alternative plots on the road sides as shown in the lay out plan (C/26). In October, 2002 on a Vigilance file L.G ordered that any changes in the layout plan is to be approved by the Screening Committee. These were communicated to Commissioner(Planning) by CVO on 13.11.2002 (C/37). Commissioner (Planning raised the issue of delegated powers to hi. Finally on 3.4.03, V.C ordered for compliance of L.G order (C/38). In the present case layout plan was changed on 3.2.03 (C/26), though CVO's letter was with Commissioner(Planning). Besides, administratively it was not proper to alter a decision of the Screening Committee at the level of Commissioner (Planning).

It is a known fact that most of these allotments are sold in advance to the property brokers who indulge in speculative business of these plots and thus a possibility of malpractices by bringing alternative plots to roadside to give advantage to such property brokers cannot be ruled out. Vigilance Department is also looking in the matter and as per the report given by Director (Vigilance), CBI is also investigating into the case and FIR against erring official/officers is to be lodged.

Looking to that it would be advisable to cancel all the allotments of alternative plots given on the road sides. We may revert back to the original layout plan immediately to allot those plots to 38 person who have been given alternative plots. Though,it is a complete fault of DDA and there is likely litigation involved in this decision, yet we my take the step so as to check any possibility of misuse of powers within DDA to give undue benefit to a particular section of people. There will be a difficulty in regard to two cases where possessions have been given. Either we may leave these two plots and cancel the other 36 allotments or even consider cancelling all 38 allotments. Once approval is given fresh allotment should be done with great seed so that people get the physical possession of new plots for which they have already deposited the required amount and to avoid any hardships to these people which will strengthen their cases in the court, if litigation is resorted to.''

18.Note of the Principal Commissioner clearly records that in October, 2002, on a vigilance file, Lt. Governor had directed that changes in the lay out plan were required to be approved by the Screening Committee. Yet inspite thereof, Vijay Risbud, effected change in the lay out plans, a fact which was not approved by the Vice Chairman, DDA on 3.4.2003.

19. Records produced would reveal that Shri Vijay Risbud has admittedly connived with unknown persons to modify the lay out plan. Action of the DDA in not proceeding ahead with allotments cannot be faulted.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a vested right has accrued in favor of the petitioners as they have accepted the allotment and have paid the full amount.

21.In my opinion, if the plots could not have been allotted at pre-determined rates and the allotment is a result of connivance or is the result of an action taken by an officer not competent to do so, no vested right can accrue to the petitioners. Needless to state, a mistake or an illegality nullifies every action.

22.The demand-cum-allotment letters were issued on 4.7.2003. Record shows that in March 2003, it came to the notice of officers of DDA that Vijay Risbud had effected change in the lay out plan and he had violated orders passed by the Lt.Governor. File shows that DDA started investigating how this was done. Least which was expected from DDA was to not issue the demand-cum-allotment letters.

23. File of the DDA reveals that vigilance enquiry is on. Purpose of the vigilance enquiry is to find and identify the officers concerned.

24. In my opinion, DDA requires nothing to be investigated. Connivance of Shri Vijay Risbud is writ large.

25. Petitioners have admittedly paid the amounts which were demanded. That the petitioners connived with Shri Vijay Risbud cannot be established. Petitioners are entitled to be put in possession of a 330 sq.mt plot for which they have paid.

26. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of with the following directions :-

1.DDA would allot another plot to the petitioners admeasuring 330 sq.mt at the same premium at which allotment was earlier made. Since petitioners have paid the full premium, possession would be handed over to petitioners within 4 weeks thereafter. Conveyance deed would be executed on the petitioners completing the requisite formalities.

2. FIR be registered against Shri Vijay Risbud for having attempted to cheat DDA, misuse power and cause wrongful loss to DDA. It would be ensured that the FIR is lodged within 4 weeks from today.

27.Petitioners would be entitled to costs as they have been made to suffer for no apparent fault of theirs. Petitioners would be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each, which would be recovered from Shri Vijay Risbud, Commissioner (Planning).