Sriram Investments Limited vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 1185 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Lay out plan of a Local Shopping Centre (LSC) at Sector C near pocket 6 and 7, Vasant Kunj was finalised by the Screening Committee of Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A) on 13.7.1993. Area statement reflected on the plan is as under:-

Plot Area: 100 x 6450 = 6450 sq.mts.

Permissible Proposed

Ground Coverage: 1935 1948 30% of 6450 30.2%

F.D.R 100% Total Covered area 6450 sq.mts.

2. 10 auctionable plots stand reflected in the plan, detailed as under:

Plot No. Area (sq.mt) Total covered area(sq.mt)

1. 210 522.69

2. 168 369.00

3. 210 687.60

4. 294 720.69

5. 294 885.69

6. 294 720.69

7. 294 885.69

8. 210 522.69

9. 168 396.00

10. 210 687.69

3. Plan envisaged total built up area on the 10 plots being 6398.52 sq.mts. as against permissible area of 6450 sq.mts.

4.Lay out plan reflects that plots No. 1 to 5 are clustered on one side. With a gap in between, are plots 6 to 10. The gap was not to be an open space, evidenced by the fact that on the plan, diamond shaped configurations are to be found. Parties admitted at the bar that these reflected shops, to be constructed by D.D.A.

5. Location of the 10 plots and the gap in between is as under:-

------------------------------

----- 4 6 -------

2 ----- ----- 9

----- 5 7 -------

3 10

-------------------------------

6. In the words of the petitioner (para 10 of the petition):

''That a perusal of the plan supplied by the respondent No. 1 to petitioner for the entire Local Shopping Centre at Sector C, Pocket 6 and 7, Vasant Kunj would show that that complex (i.e. the Local Shopping Complex) comprised of only 10 plots and between ''Pot No. 7'' and Plot No. 5 there was to be a huge open courtyard and green area and some kiosks/shops on the ground level only. That, each building was to have an open public corridor running around its periphery. The entire complex was so conceived that it was to be single unit i.e to say that the entire complex (comprising of 10 plots) would be inter-connected at the same level implying thereby that ''Plot No. 7'' was to be interconnected to all the plots at the ground level through the corridors running around each building for the convenience of the general public and to give equal opportunity to all shop owner's, with all the shop's being visible from the other block of building(s). Further ''Plot No. 7'' of the petitioner was shown to be connected to Plot No. 5 and the Map also showed some kiosks/shops only on ground level itself. A copy of the Map/Plan is attached herewith as ANNEXURE P-7.''

7. On 26.4.1997, D.D.A issued a public notice notifying auction of plot No. 7 in the Local Shopping Centre at Vasant Kunj. Petitioner participated at the auction by offering a bid. Reserve price of the plot was Rs. 4.67 crores. Bid of the petitioner was highest in sum of Rs. 4.68 cores. It was accepted. Petitioner paid and on 23.9.1997 a perpetual lease deed was executed in favor of the petitioner.

8. Petitioner states that while offering the bid, it was influenced by the following considerations:

''That the petitioner had purchased the ''plot No. 7'' admeasuring 294 square meters for a huge amount of Rs. 4,68,00,000/-(Rupees Four crore Sixty Eight Lakhs only) i.e. @ Rs. 1,59,183/- per square metre, keeping in view the fact that the plot would be open on two sides i.e the West and the South so that from both the sides maximum Sunlight and Air is received during the course of the day. This feature of ''plot No. 7'' was very important to the agreement between the parties as the value of any Commercial Property mainly depends on the surroundings of the property, its approach and connectivity with the entry and exit points and also the whole of the Shopping Complex. This two side openness also ensured that the petitioner would get a good value for the shops sworn on a Stamp paper of requisite value and before a 1st Class Magistrate, a Notary Public or a Justice of Peace, as the case may be. In the case of those who are outside the country, the affidavit may be sworn before a Justice of Peace or a corresponding judicial authority but should be countersigned by the Embassy/High Commission, etc. of this country. You undertook to do this in a month's time. It was agreed that, on receipt of these affidavits from you, a meeting will be arranged in the room of Secretary when all those prospective allottees, who are in Delhi, could come and confirm their acceptance in person.

I am now to send herewith a draft of the affidavit to be signed by each individual allottee. This may kindly be got signed by all the 28 prosepective allottees separately and individually and sent to this Ministry as early as possible the layout plan (Drawing No. T.P.2236) may also please be returned.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Tirath Ram )

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India''

18. Letter aforesaid shows that 31 plots were to be given to 28 persons (obviously some had booked more than 1 plot) and issue to be decided was about layout and size of the plot.

19. Formalities required to be completed by the allottees were discussed. Letters exist in the file showing exchange of correspondence between Sh. B.K. Bhowmik and the government.

20. In the meanwhile one more person, Shri Kali Prasad won in the suit filed by him. He had purchased 2 plots from the Sunlight of India Insurance Company. He too staked a claim for 2 plots. On 13.5.1972, a note stand recorded that layout be amended to carve out 2 more plots i.e. 33 in all.

21. Record produced reflects a slightly hazy picture as to what happened post June, 1972 for the reason that it appears from some of the nothings that ultimately 38 plots came to be identified for allotment. One of the original plaintiffs who had challenged the acquisition, Smt. Shakuntla Devi had 4 plots and as noted above Sh. Kali Prasad who subsequently won the litigation had 2 plots. Further, record reveals that one plot was earmarked for allotment to late Sh. Girdhari Lal, being plot No. 13 at Siri Fort Road.

22. There are some nothings on the file which are relevant and are, therefore, being noted. When actual allotment came to be considered, a note was put up as to what should be the form of the conveyance deed to be executed by the government. nothings reveal that government proceeded to take a decision to allot alternative plot to only those persons who established title to the plot allotted by Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. to them. This got scotched as per note dated 20.5.1980 written by oner.S. Ramaswamy.The note reads as under:-

''As desired a list of litigants to whom allotment has been made and also other litigants who were allotted plot of lands subsequently is placed below. In this connection I would like to state that this is not merely a case of allotment of land in lieu osome other plot but this is in satisfaction of a court order and Government is committed to make the allotment to the litigants. The issue involved in this case is allotment of the alternative plot to the legal heirs of the deceased litigants.''

23. Government proceeded to execute the necessary conveyance deeds in favor of not only the 28 persons who had filed the suits at the first instance and Sh.Kali Prasad subject to these persons submitting the necessary documents. Some persons who had not filed suits but had submitted the necessary documents also were the beneficiaries. One fact is relevant and needs to be noted. The format of the exchange deed required to be signed contains no recital of ownership of title pursuant to a registration t the plot allotted by Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. in favor of the allottee.

24. I had considered the record with consent of the parties because parties agreed that it would be better to look into the record and not solely relied upon the pleadings to adjudicate the claims.

25. Position which emanates from the records as noted above is that not all allottees who were allotted a plot by Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. were aggrieved by acquisition inasmuch as some of them received the compensation. Some allottees filed suits challenging the acquisition in which they succeeded. Some did not file the suits and did not receive the compensation. All those who established title and did not receive the compensation were allotted a plot in lieu of said person giving up te claim to the plot allotted by Sunlight of India Insurance Company Limited. Record further establishes that some allottees who had not paid full sum to Sunlight of India Insurance Company Limited were sought to be denied alternative plot on the ground hat they had not perfected their title. When this proposal was first mooted, it received the attention of the government. Final decision got crystalized in the note of Sh.S.Ramaswamy noted in para 22 above.

26. Decree obtained by the 28 plaintiffs was declaring the acquisition to be void, followed by an injunction restraining the government from taking the possession of the land. Note of Shri S.Ramaswamy clearly records that in view of the court decree, it is not merely a case of allotment of land in lieu of land but in addition requires satisfaction of a court decree.

27. Government would be bound by its decision. Late Sh.Girdhari Lal has to be held entitled to an alternative plot. He had a decree in his favor. This view was the view of the government evidenced by the fact that when 31 plots were carved out for the 28 original litigants, name of Girdhari Lal was included as one of the persons who had to be allotted a plot. His claim gets further fortified for the reason that one Anandi Devi who was neither a plaintiff in any of the suits and had otherwise not esablished her claim before the authorities had filed a writ petition in this court claiming an alternative plot being WP(C) No. 1385 of 1997. During hearing of the petition filed by her, it was pointed out that plot No. 13, Siri Fort, New Delhi was lying vcant. Allowing the writ petition filed by Anandi Devi, directions were issued to allot a plot to Anandi Devi. Government challenged the decision first before the Division Bench and then before the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, an affidavit as filed by the Government stating that plot No. 13, Siri Fort Road was earmarked for being allotted to Sh.Girdhari Lal. For record, I may note that the LPA filed against decision of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1385/1997 was LPA No. 34/1998. It as dismissed on 2.2.1998. Petition for Special Leave to Appeal being SLP(C) No. 8815/1998 was dismissed on 2.11.1998.

28. Sh. Rajeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2 argued that Girdhari Lal had not established full payment being made to the Sunlight of India Insurance Company Ltd. He stated that for challenging the acquisition, any person interested has locus standi to challenge the acquisition. This person need not be the owner of the land. Counsel contended that filing of the suit by Sh.Girdhari Lal and resultant decree in his favor did not entitle him to an alternative plot till he estblished title. Sh.Rajeev Sharma, however, did not dispute that all persons to whom alternative plots were allotted did not establish title. The argument is neither here nor there for the simple reason that government itself took a view evidenced by the note of Sh.S.Ramaswamy that it was not merely a case of land for land but was also a case where decree of the court required to be satisfied.

29. Late Sh.Girdhari Lal was a co-lessee under the LandDO in respect of a residential plot at Hailey Road. On his death, petitioners of WP(C) No. 1658/99 were accepted as his legal heirs and mutation of the said plot was effected in their names. Mr.Rajeev Sharma, therefore, admitted that petitioners would be entitled to be treated as legal heirs of Girdhari Lal.

30. Sh. Rajeev Sharma argued that relief must be denied on grounds of delay and laches. I am afraid, this plea has to be repelled for the reason that Anandi Devi and Anr. had filed a writ petition in the year 1997 laying a similar claim. Claim was upheld.Government went uptil the Supreme Court. Decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. In the said writ petition, government opposed allotment of plot No. 13, Siri Fort Road to Anandi Devi, evidenced by the affidavit filed in the Hon'ble Supreme Cout, stating that this plot had to be allotted to Girdhari Lal. Obviously, till 1997, Government recognized claim of Girdhari Lal.

31. Claim of petitioners in WP(C) No. 3011/2002 is on a different footing. Admittedly, their father had not filed a suit challenging the acquisition. Qua him, question of satisfaction of a court decree does not arise. His name does not find mentioned in the award. His name does not find mentioned in the list submitted by Sunlight of India Insurance Company to the Land Acquisition Collector giving the names of persons to whom the company had allotted a plot. Only proof of plot being allotted to late Sri Sri Kishan is letter dated 5.12.1952. Said letter reads as under:-

''Shri Sri Krishan,

623, Katra Neel,

Delhi.

 

Dear Sir,
 

We refer you to our letter No.       FP-23/747 dated 24.11.52 and request you to please remit a sum of Rs.      180/-/- being the registration expenses. The details are as under:-
  

Stamp papers for Sale deed Rs.      100/-/-
 

Registration fee for Rs.      22/8/-
 

Stamp papers for Mortgage
 

deed. Rs.      35/-/-
 

Registration fee for Mortgage
 

deed. Rs.      18/-12/-
 

Mis. Plan Etc. Rs.       3/-12/-
 

Rs.      180/-/-
 

Please note that delay in registration would not in any way effect the dates of payment of subsequent Installments with interest to be charged from the date of sale i.e. from 29.4.52.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

( Secretary )''

32. The letter clearly shows that full payment was not received.

33. Late Sh. Sri Kishan never made any claim for an alternative plot in his life time. Admittedly, late Sh.Sri Kishan never marched under the banner of Sh.B.K. Bhowmik. Claim was made by his sons as late as in the year 2000.

34. Sons of late Sh.Sri Kishan can succeed only if they establish full payment being made to Sunlight of India Insurance Company Limited. This would require evidence. Further, as noted by me above, post June, 1972, record has become a little hazy. Explanation given by Sh.Rajeev Sharma is that individual files were opened in respect of those persons who had established title or full payment or had filed suit and had even complied with the procedural formalities. Qua individual entitlements, those filewould have to be looked into to establish how and on what basis alternative plots were given. Files produced and which were perused by me contained nothings leading to the formulation of a policy decision. Above all, delay and laches hit these petitionRs.

35. When arguments were concluded on 6.8.2004, counsel for the petitioners had made a statement that in case petitioners were to succeed, they would be willing to pay the differential premium at the pre-determined rates based on the current pre-determined rates and the pre-determined rates as on 1.1.1970. This statement was made on a court querry as to why should the government bear additional expenditure for the apparent delay attributable to the petitioneRs. Process of allotment of alternative plot to thers who were found entitled commenced in the year 1970 and on the petitioners predecessor-in-interest being found eligible when claims were being processed, alternative plot would have been allotted in exchange, i.e. without money consideration. Admttedly they had slept over the matter. An alternative plot if allotted today would be on a land acquired much later and developed much later. To balance equities, querry was made by the court as to in what way government should be equalized. Accordingy, statement afore-noted was made.

36. WP(C) No. 1658/1999 is accordingly allowed. Directions are issued to LandDO to forthwith allot or direct DDA to allot a plot of land to the writ petitioners of WP(C) No. 1658/1999. Size of the plot would be as per entitlement of late Sh.Girdhari Lal already determined in the files. Further directions are issued to raise a demand on the petitioners based on the differential in the current pre-determined rates and the pre-determined rates as on 1.1.1970. Needful be done within 8 weeks from today. On ptitioners depositing the sum demanded, possession of the plot be handed over to the petitioners and necessary conveyance deed be executed.

37. WP(C) No.       3011/2002 is dismissed.
 

38. No costs.