S.R. Yadav vs D.D.A.
2004 Latest Caselaw 323 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. The Respondents are granted four weeks' time within which to file Reply to the Writ Petition. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four weeks thereafter. CM No.3609/2004

2. In some of these petitions I had passed interim Orders to the effect that if the proposed auction is proceeded with, one plot shall be kept reserved for the Petitioner. Thereafter, interim Orders to this effect had not been granted in some of the other petitions because it had been pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondents that the Division Bench had upheld the policy of the DDA to auction plots in LPA No.978/2002 titled Smt.Supla Jain Vs. DDA, decided on 3.9.2003. That decision however does not apply to the facts of the present case, as shall be evident hereinafter.

3. The Scheme with which the Court is presently concerned is the Rohini Residential Scheme, a blue print or Site/Layout Plan of which has been filed in this Court by counsel for the Petitioners. Broadly stated the Scheme is calculated and intended to benefit the economically weaker sections, lower income groups and middle income groups. Of the entire area available 97 per cent is stated by Counsel for the DDA to have been earmarked for allotment to persons/applicants within this social group. So far as the remaining 3 per cent is concerned they were set apart for sale by auction and this policy was advocated/justified for raising resources for the development of the entire area. Accordingly, the wisdom was that by auctioning a small number of lots the benefits would inure to these sections of society.

4. The Site Plan indicates the auction plots to be located in Sites S6 and S7. The plots which are proposed to be auctioned however are throughout the entire area and are not located only in Sites S6 and S7. Learned counsel for the DDA are also unable to affirmatively state that the 3% ratio would not be exceeded if the proposed sale is completed. This is the distinction in the grievances of the Petitioners before the Division Bench and before me. Counsel for the DDA have vehemently stressed the fact that as per the agreement between the parties the DDA retained the right to allot 60 sq. meters plots even in those instances where 90 sq. metres had been applied for. It has also been contended that the policy to allot 90 sq. meters to the MIG group had been reconsidered and keeping in view the paucity of land and the overwhelming number of aspiring applicants, it has been decided that only 60 sq. meters plots would be allotted. This is stated to be in consonance with the rights retained by the DDA in the agreement/scheme entered into by the Petitioner. It needs to be immediately appreciated that the assault on the Respondent's policy is not related to the reduction of the size of the plot. Even though the Respondents possess the right to a lot smaller plots, the exercise must be carried out uniform ally and universally. This is not the position before the Court. The Petitioners have not laid a challenge to this alternation in the Scheme. The DDA is auctioning lands so as to reap large amounts of money but in this process the plots available to the applicants stands drastically diminished. By increasing the number of plots open for sale through the auction process the legitimate expectations of the persons waiting in the queue for a quarter century, shall indubitably evaporate.

5. There can be no quarrel pertaining to 3 per cent of land which the DDA can unassailably and unquestionably auction. Presumably this land must be located in Sites S6 and S7 as per the legend in the blue print/Site Plan made available to the Court. I have queried the counsel for the DDA as to whether the 97 per cent of the land has already been allotted to the applicants and/or whether 3 per cent of the auctionable land has not been exhausted. A definite answer to the question is not available today. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that once the auction goes through, these percentages shall be altered to the detriment of the applicants, for whom the acquisition and development of vast tracts of land was infact carried out. The entire purpose has been forgotten.

6. In Supla Jain's case (supra) the Hon'ble Division Bench was dealing with the controversy of a Petitioner seeking a restraint order on the DDA from auctioning plots on the grounds that it had been waiting for several decades but no allotment has been received. In those circumstances it had been pleaded that the DDA should be restrained from auctioning any plots. If the Site Plan is studied it would prima facie appear that Sites S6 and S7 would constitute the stated 3 per cent available to the DDA for auctioning. So far as this percentage is concerned a Petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the DDA should be restrained from going ahead with the auction and instead allot these areas also to those persons waiting in the line. This i my understanding is the gravamen of the decision of the Division Bench.

7. What is happening in the present instance is that plots in areas which were to be allotted to the applicants, are being auctioned. It could have been appreciated if the DDA were to contend that since development has allegedly taken place in some areas onts. If the auction is to proceed it will necessary entail the release of some other plots which had earlier been earmarked for auction to maintain the balance of 97% and 3%, or to remain in consonance with the Rohini Residential Scheme itself which av wedly is intended for the benefit of the weaker sections of our society and not for those possessing money power. It appears to me that in the guise of exercising their option to auction land up to 3 per cent, the DDA has entered into the areas earmarked for allotment. Speaking for myself, if the 90 sq.metres were being uniform ally reduced to 60 sq.metres plots the decision of the DDA could not be faulted, since this would have the palpable purpose of accommodating a larger number of persons belonging of the economically weaker sections. This is however not being achieved.

8. In these circumstances I am of the view that if the auction is proceeded with by the DDA it must reserve one plot for each of the Petitioners. Since the matter has been heard at length I am constrained to observe that should the DDA exceed the 3 per cent area open for auction then, inasmuch as the 97 per cent area till date has not been allotted and would not be allot table in the future so far as the present Rohini Residential Scheme is concerned, the action could be seen as perfidious. Since the Petitioners before me have pressed only for the reservation of one plot it would not be appropriate for this Court to interdict the entire auction even though by auctioning an increasing number of plots the areas available for allotment to those waiting is line would be drastically reduced. The dreams of persons patiently awaiting for the good fortune of owning a humble abode would be dashed to the ground not because the land was scarce, but because this already insufficient land has been further reduced because of auctions calculated to swell the coffers of the DDA.

9. It has also been contended that if the policy of the DDA were to be implemented strictly, some of the Petitioners would not be entitled to allotment keeping their priority in view. I am, however, concerned only with the Petitioners before me. The allotment is not being made by these Orders and only a reservation has been ordered. In the event that there are other claimants to the plots reserved by this Court or those sought to be auctioned, and such persons have a preferable priority that factor may be sufficient to deny relief to the Petitioner. At this stage, however, those considerations do not arise.

10. In these circumstances Respondent is directed to reserve one plot of 90 sq. meters for each the Petitioners in respect of the plots proposed to be auctioned in the Public Notice if the DDA is still desirous of going through the auction which prima facie defeats the purpose of the Scheme itself.

11. Application stands disposed of accordingly.