Smt. Laj Wanti, W/O Shri Hans Raj ... vs Delhi Development Authority, ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1108 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This is a classic case of monopolistic institutional exploitation by the respondent-DDA. In similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court on 7.5.1990 in the case of the same Cooperative Society, which is the Society in this case also, in the matter of N P Taneja V/s.Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi & ors. decided that non-communication of the order of Lt.Governor, Delhi, which was the basis for determination of sub-lease of the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice dated 13.4.1987 was bad in law as on that basis the Lt.Governor on 18.3.1987 had determined the sub-lease of the petitioner without supplying a copy of the same to petitioner despite requests and demands. Like in the case of N P Taneja's (supra), in this case also the petitioner has demanded a copy of the said order of the same dated i.e. 18.3.1987. The dates of the orders by which the sub-leases were determined are also common in the present writ petition as well as in the case of N P Taneja's case (supra). The Division Bench in N P Taneja's case (supra) held that :-

"The principles of natural justice would demand that the order which adversely affects the rights of a citizen should be supplied to him. In the present case, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of the decision of the Lt.Governor taken on 18th March, 1987, pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice. The petitioner has a right to know as to why the Lt.Governor took the decision to cancel the allotment in favor of the petitioner. The impugned order of the Lt.Governor affected the civil rights of the petitioner and in our opinion, principles of natural justice required that not only should that order contain reasons, but should also have been communicated to the petitioner. As this has admittedly not been done the petition is entitled to succeed.

For the aforesaid reasons, we issue a Writ of Mandamus quashing the order dated 18th March, 1987 passed by the Lt.Governor as well as the communication dated 13th April, 1987. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to take such action against the petitioner as they may be advised in accordance with law."

2. That order in the case of N P Taneja's case (supra) was challenged by the respondent in the Supreme Court of India by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) bearing no.2626/1991, no stay was granted.. Supreme Court dismissed the said appeal on 1.5.1996. It has also been brought to our notice that regarding similarly situated persons of the said society, the Lt.Governor, Delhi as Chairman of DDA on 7.6.1991 in the case of Smt.Kamla Yadav had passed certain orders. Doubts the legitimacy of the membership of said Smt.Kamla Yadav was set at rest by the said order. Lt.Governor noted in his order :-

"It has been represented to me that the cancellation was engineered due to factionalism and electoral politics within the society. There is some basis in the allegation as is evident from the letter of the RCS at F/K. Smt.Kamla Yadav has no other property in Delhi and was even an office-bearer of the society. In the papers handed over by her in a folder, there is no indication that society was giving her membership on transfer from a blood relation. From the note Commissioner (Lands), it seems that it would be a difficult and uncertain exercise to ascertain the precise facts specially due to the non-availability of records. Surjeet Singh Sethi's original membership may have been fictitious and the management of the society may have given Smt.Yadav membership in place of Shri Sethi and used the ground of Blood relationship for transfer as a means of administration convenience. This inference flows from the very large list of such transfers as F/X.

I feel that without going into this and on grounds of equity, there is a good case of restoring the lease to Smt.Kamla Yadav. She has been a member since 1973. It has no where been alleged that she was not eligible for membership on grounds of owning any other plot / house in Delhi or of not being a resident of Delhi. She was allotted a plot in 1979, which she paid for and has constructed her house and has been in possession. In fact the principle of estoppal should operate in such cases. Accordingly, I order that the lease may to restored to Smt.Kamla Yadav.

The case of Smt.Maya Devi, which is similar is also disposed of accordingly.

The other cases may also be examined on the basis of the above.

Sd/-

Lt.Governor, Delhi"

3. As a matter of fact, respondent-DDA acted on the said letter of the Lt.Governor and vide their letter dated 5.9.1991 they informed the said Smt.Kamla Yadav that lease hold rights have been restored in plot no.117 in Rajdhani Cooperative Society subject to payment of restoration charges and no other charges were asked from the said Smt.Kamla Yadav. Similar order was passed in the case of said Maya Devi.

4. If the respondent-DDA itself acted upon the order of the Lt.Governor, to our mind, even the charges for restoration was illegal as the lease was determined by the Lt.Governor who had restored it. Petitioner did not get her lease determined and the alleged reasons for which the lease was determined were held to be bad, liability for restoration cannot be fastened on petitioner. The petitioner demanded to know the reasons for the said determination and the same was denied, if court and Lt.Governor quashed the order of determination of leases and Lt.Governor had restored the lease in law, how DDA can charge restoration charges. then why and how the restoration charges can be imposed on petitioner. Why the the petitioner should be made to pay for the illegality committed by DDA, to us it is not comprehensible. Under the garb of immunities for bona fide action of the public officials/departments, it cannot be exploited by the respondent-DDA as has been done by them in this case. The stand of the respondent-DDA has been decided up to Supreme Court in N P Taneja's case (supra). Lt.Governor, who happened to be the Chairman of the respondent-DDA, restored the lease deed of the similarly situated persons, a notice regarding plot no.90 of the petitioner was sent dated 7.12.2000, reliance on which has been placed by Ms.Salwan, which, inter alia, raised a demand of Rs.2,87,706/=. It was contended before us that it was a case of sale and, therefore, the petitioner was liable to pay. The petitioner's case that he has no other alternative plot as the plot was allotted to him in 1978, she has been representing to DDA to restore the lease as no order determining the lease was communicated to her dated 18.3.1987, instead of replying to the said letters even after knowing the result of N P Taneja's case (supra), which we have referred to above, the respondent went on with their mindless harassment and to extort and take money from the petitioner. The petitioner had to pay under protest a sum of Rs.3,91,498/= though initially said demand was for Rs.2,87,706/= only. What was contended by the learned counsel for the DDA was that it was a case of transfer, was never communicated to the petitioner for filing of the writ petition till date.

5. What is the minimum relief which must be granted to the petitioner? The lease of the petitioner was cancelled by an order which did not contain any reasons, which order was also not given to her despite specific demands by her. Despite the pronouncements by the High Court and Supreme Court in the matter of another person of the same society, nothing was done in the matter of petitioner. DDA has not followed th directions of its Chairman given on 7.6.1991 in the case of similarly situated persons. The lease of the petitioner which was cancelled in an arbitrary manner has been restored in 2000 by extracting a very large sum of money which had been paid by her under protest. This has resulted, as has been informed to us during hearing, that the petitioner could not complete the construction of her house on the plot of land which was allotted to her. The petitioner is stated to be very old now. The damage which has been caused to the petitioner is irreversible.

6. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority Vs M.K. Gupta (1994)4 SCC 243, the Supreme Court on account of laxity of some officers or the deliberate manipulation of some others in conducting the cases to harass the people while awarding compensation to the persons who were harassed due to malicious and oppressive exercise of power, not only awarded compensation to the harassed persons but also directed that the said compensation be recovered from the officers responsible. In another matter Central Cooperative Consumers Stores Ltd. Vs Labor Court the observation of Supreme Court are relevant and revealing. The Supreme Court felt deeply pained to note the "state of affairs" and observed:

"public money has been wasted due to adamant behavior, not only of the officer who terminated the services but also due to cantankerous attitude adopted by those responsible for pursuing the litigation before the one or the other authority. They have literally persecuted her. Despite unequal strength, the opposite party has managed to survive. We are informed that the opposite party has been reinstated. This was put forward as bona fide conduct of petitioner to persuade us to modify the order in respect of back wages. Facts speak otherwise. Working life of opposite party has been lost in this tortuous and painful litigation of more than twenty years. That for such thoughtless acts of its officers the petitioner-society has two suffer and pay an amount exceeding three lakhs is indeed pitiable. But considering the agony and suffering of the opposing party that amount cannot be proper recompense. We, therefore, dismiss this petition as devoid of any merit and direct the petitioner to comply with the directions of the High Court within the time granted by it. We, however , leave it open to the society to replenish itself and recover the amount of back wages paid by it to the opposite party from the personal salary of the officers of the society , who had been responsible for this endless litigation including the officer, who was responsible for terminating the services of the opposing party. We make clarify that permission given shall have nothing to do with the direction to pay the respondent are back wages. Step, if any to recover the amount shall be taken only after payment is made to the opposite party as directed by the High Court."

7. The Supreme Court followed this reasoning in Radha Bai Vs Union Territory of Pondicherry, . It was a case which involved the harassment of a woman officer of the Pondicherry administration. She was fighting for her cause course for seventeen years. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ordered the government to pay her compensation on the basis that a responsible statutory authority or administration owes a duty to the public to discharge it functions reasonably, honestly and bona fide, without driving the aggrieved persons from pillar to post, and should there be any non-excusable lapse on this score, the authority concerned or administration should be held responsible for the loss or damage accruing thereby to the aggrieved person. In yet another case, Union of India Vs Rahul Rasgotra, (1994) 1 SCC 600c, the Supreme Court had observed :

"This shows the apathy of the persons responsible for the conduct of the case on behalf of the Government are deliberate or inadvertent but they are certainly culpable which need to be investigated by the authorities concerned to identify the delinquents and punish them in public interest. It is time that the derelicts are also held accountable and liable for the loss of public money due to their lapse."

8. This leaves us with no doubt but to implement the verdict of the Supreme Court in different cases. The petitioner, therefore, is entitled to refund of entire amount extracted from her. The demand of Rs.2,87,706 was made on her which comprised of:

  1.      Amount of 50% U.E.I     4105.00
2.      Interest on 50% U.E.I   17241.00
         up to 31.12.2000
3.      Registration Charges     32324.00
4.      Damages Charges         234035.75
 

9. The petitioner was not liable to pay any of these amounts and we hold so categorically. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances will be entitled for refund of entire amount of Rs.3,91,498 from the Respondent/DDA which was extracted from her. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest on the said amount which should be 18% simple interest per annum which rate of interest was demanded from the petitioner by the respondent/DDA. The rate of interest awarded to the petitioner can not be and should not be different from what is demanded by the respondent/DDA.

10. We would also like to impose a cost of Rs.5 lacs on the erring officials of respondent-DDA for harassing the citizen after the orders had been passed by the Supreme Court. For that we would not like the public authority to make the payment because that will go out of public funds and, therefore, we would like to fix the responsibility on the erring officials. This cost will also be paid to petitioner. We hope that with this amount the petitioner may recompense herself to a certain extent and may able to finish the construction of her house. We were prompted to award this cost considering the cost of construction which was in 1987 and which is now prevailing. We are not compensating the actual loss which the petitioner has suffered as these officials, who had not implemented the order of their own Chairman, i.e. Lt.Governor of Delhi, who had directed on 7.6.1991 that :-

"The other cases be examined on the basis of the above"

and in spite of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in identical circumstances on 7.5.1990. If the allotment of the plot would have been given to the petitioner in May'1990, after Division Bench of this court had quashed the cancellation on the basis of case of N.P.Taneja (supra) and after the SLP having been filed, no stay was granted, may be, orders passed by the court are not taken seriously, on what basis the action for cancellation of their earlier order was not done after Chairman/Lt.Governor had passed order restoring the lease in similar circumstances, the cost of construction of the same would have been saved by the petitioner, had petitioner commenced construction in 1990 or 1991. No amount of money can compensate the agony, hardship and traumatic experience which the petitioner has to undergo by the callous and indifferent attitude of the respondents. Neither they have any respect for court orders nor the order passed by the Chairman of the DDA.

10. We allow the writ petition. However, we would like to see that costs are recovered from the erring official, therefore, all the Files of this case be brought in Court on the next date of hearing as we would also like to fix responsibility as to who will be liable and pay the cost imposed by us.

List this matter on 4.11.2004.

Copy of this order be given dusty to counsel for the respondent-DDA, Ms.Salwan under the signatures of the Court Master.