Smt. Prem Lata And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1001 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. This is a second round of litigation. The first round ended when order dated 1.4.2003 was passed by this court in WP(C) No. 6630/2003 and other connected petitions. Said order reads as under:-

"This is a batch of writ petitions dealing with the issue of allotment of platforms in Janta Market at CSC, Paschim Vihar, A-4, near Plot Nos. 40 to 47. The petitioners are aggrieved by the cost of the platforms.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the beginning of the demand letter it is stated that the said letter has been issued in response to the tender deposited by the petitioners, which is not correct since the petitioners had not submitted any tender.

Mr.Sabharwal, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3/DDA, does not dispute the position, but states that the petitioners have been treated at parity with tender cases.

It is also not disputed that grievances of the petitioners are under consideration before the respondent authorities and the whole matter is being examined as to whether any relief can or cannot be granted to the petitioners.

In view of the aforesaid position, it is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that following directions be passed in present writ petitions:-

1) In view of technical defect in the impugned letters referring to a tender, the said demand letters are quashed;

2) The case of all the petitioners and similarly situated persons shall be considered by the respondents and a fresh decision be taken within a maximum period of 2 months from today;

3) Till the aforesaid decision is taken, the platforms in question shall not be further allotted or dealt with by the respondent;

4) On the aforesaid decision being taken fresh demand letters shall be issued in accordance with law by the respondent;

5) The petitioners will have the option to either accept the allotment on the terms and conditions specified in the fresh allotment-cum-demand letter or impugn the same in appropriate proceedings, if they are so advised; and

6) The amounts deposited by some of the petitioners in terms of the interim directions passed by this Court shall be adjusted against final demand to be made against the petitioners and shall be treated as a non-interest bearing deposit for a period of 3 months from today.

The writ petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs."

2. Run up to the filing of writ petition aforesaid and connected petitions was the demand-cum-allotment letter issued to the writ petitioners therein. Inter alia, following was recorded:-

"This is with reference to the allotment of the property (details mentioned above) to you in response to your tender deposited on 26.12.2001."

3. For a 5 sq. meter cemented platform (thara) D.D.A. had demanded Rs.2,35,000/- as premium. Said demand was questioned, inter alia, that petitioners had never submitted any tender. Order dated 1.4.2003 as noted in para 1 above was passed quashing the demand but leaving issue of cost open for challenge, if allottee was aggrieved by the subsequent demand.

4. Vide revised demand cum allotment dated 1.10.2003 fresh demand has been raised in sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.2,35,000/-. This demand is in question.

5. Petitioners claim to be carrying on petty trade of selling fruits/vegetables at block A-5, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for the last 20 years. On 29.12.1998, officers of DDA sought to remove the petitioners from the site at which they were squatting. As per the petitioners, attempt to dispossess them was without notice and without any prior intimation. A voluntary social organisation named Jagriti Mahila Samiti (Registered) intervened on behalf of the petitioners. It made representations to the Lt. Governor, Minister for Urban Development, Government of India, Vice Chairman, DDA and the Director (Land) DDA. Representations requested that the petitioners should be rehabilitated.

6. On 19.3.1998 and 25.3.1998, at a public meeting, petitioners claim that the then Lt.Governor Shri Tejinder Khanna passed orders that alternative accommodation/site be made available to the petitioner.

7. On 7.1.1999, the Minister for Urban Development made noting on the file, inter alia, it was recorded as under:-

"It is common ground that decision of 22.12.1998 was taken without hearing the persons carrying on business on the plot in question. It is now agreed that some suitable accommodation will be found where these poor people can carry on their small trade and their trade will be regularised. The present plot will then be disposed off in accordance with the decision which has been taken, namely to give it to the CGHS. However, until a suitable plot is found, the present traders will be allowed to enter the plot, retrieve their belongings if any, and carry on their small trade as usual. They undertake that they will stop this as soon as suitable alternative arrangements are made of which our Jt.Secretary. Mr.Banerjee will be the sole judge. Reference has been made to some previous attempts to take possession of this plot in a court order of October, 1998. The previous attempts were prior to the order of April, 1998 and even in October, 1998 the court was not informed about the April, 1998 decision. Moreover the traders were not parties to the court proceedings."

8. DDA allotted the site, being a cemented platform admeasuring 5 sq. mtrs. at a premium of Rs.2,35,000/-.

9. As noted in paras 1 and 2 above, preamble to this letter of DDA recorded that allotment was in response to a tender. Petitioners filed WP(C) NO. 6630/2002 praying for quashing of the demand, inter alia, on the ground that the demand was raised as if petitioners has submitted a tender. Facts being otherwise, writ petition was allowed. Order passed stands noted in para one above.

10. Revised demands have been issued to the petitioners which are challenged in the present proceedings. Revised demands have been raised on various dates between 1.10.2003 to 7.10.2003.

11. Cemented platforms admeasuring 5 sq. mtrs have been allotted to the petitioners at a premium varying from Rs.2,25,000/- to Rs.2,35,000/-.

12. It is this demand which is challenged by the petitioners.

13. Challenge is predicated on two grounds. First is on ground of discrimination. Second challenge is on the ground that the demand is unreasonable.

14. Discrimination is alleged in reference to an allotment made to one Shri Puran Chand on 18.9.1981. Said Puran Chand was allotted a cemented platform in Trilok Puri on license basis in lieu of site occupied by him. Allotment letter in favor of Mr.Puran Chand shows that site was allotted at a monthly license fee of Rs.25/- p.m. Contention urged is that petitioners were entitled to a similar allotment.

15. On the plea of unreasonableness, counsel urged that petitioner were petty fruit and vegetable retail vendors. They came from humble background. To make allotment of 5 sq. meter thada at a price ranging from Rs.2.25 lacs to Rs.2.35 lacs was illusory in as much DDA knows that petitioners can never pay such huge amount.

16. Counter affidavit by DDA denies that the Lt.Governor ever passed any orders on 19.3.1998 or 25.3.1998 as alleged by the petitioners. It is stated that DDA charged the rate as per market price determined by the financial wing of DDA. Market price is stated to have been determined by determining the same as per the average tender rate fetched when tenders were invited in November, 2001 for similar Tharas. It is stated that as per average tender rate fetched in November,2001 price comes to Rs.45,000/- per sq. mtr. for Paschim Vihar and Rs.47000/- per sq. mtr. for Paschim Puri area. It is stated in the counter affidavit that DDA had allotted similar platforms in the year 2002 in Dwarka & Pitam Pura. Rate charged was Rs.62,000/- to Rs.65000/-.

17. Counsel for the respondent urged that DDA is governed by the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 as also the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968.

18. Counsel urged that under the Nazul Land Rules which have been framed by the Central Government and are binding on DDA, manner of allotment is governed by rules 5 to 8.

19. Counsel contends that the only permissible mode for the DDA to allot Nazul land is at the pre determined rates as determined by the Central Government or by auction or by tender in accordance with rules. Counsel contended that allotment at pre determined rates was restricted to the categories enumerated in Rule 5, 6 and 7 of the Nazul Rules. Counsel contended that the petitioners do not fall in any of the category of persons listed in said rules.

20. Of all the administrative controls and services which have multiplied in the modern state, the one which has generated most litigation is urban development. Urban planning is a necessary governmental activity as it has its roots in housing.

21. Local authorities undertake large development, usually under the supervision of the Government. Developed land or housing sites are thereafter transferred to the citizens. Here, elements of subsidies creep in. Economic imbalances in the society make land prices unaffordable for the poor. Legislations enact certain provisions where the state is able to discharge its duty to provide land to a needy person at affordable prices. The Delhi Development Act,1957 is a Central Legislation. Lands which are required for the planned development of Delhi are acquired by the Central Government and placed at the disposal of Delhi Development Authority under Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act. Sub Section (4) of Section 22 of the Delhi Development Act states that while placing the acquired lands at the disposal of the Delhi Development Authority, the Central Government may impose the terms and conditions under which the land is placed at the disposal of the authority. This land is called Nazul land.

22. The Nazul land rules are the mandate of the Central Government regulating all Nazul Land.

23. Thus, the Nazul land i.e. the land acquired by the Central Government for the planned development of Delhi and placed at the disposal of the Development Authority has to be dealt with by the authority in terms of the Nazul Land Rules.

24. The legislative intent of the Nazul land rules appears to be that public money must be administered with responsibility and without extravagance. It means that it is not available for charity. By carving out certain categories of persons as entitled to allotment at pre determined rates, the Central Government has restricted the generosity of the DDA. A fairly even balance has been struck by the Nazul rules between the recipients of the benefit and the taxpayers who have to bear the cost. Permissible philanthropy as a form of social assistance is reasonably incidental to a power to acquire and dispose of the land. This philanthropy under the Delhi Development Act 1957 is authorised by parliament. Extent of authorisation is limited by parliament.

25. Delhi Development Authority cannot be compelled to make any allotment contrary to the mandate of the law.

26. Under what law petitioners are entitled to be granted the sites at the rate of 6000/- as prayed in the writ petition has not been spelt out. Decision of the Lt.Governor on which reliance has been placed has not been filed. Respondents deny any decision being taken by the Lt.Governor.

27. Plea of discrimination in reference to a license granted to Puran Chand on 18.9.1981 has to be rejected for the simple reason that what was allotted to Puran Chand was a license. Petitioners are being granted a perpetual lease. Further, respondent/DDA cannot be bound not to change its policy. If for some reasons, it was decided in the year 1981 that cemented platforms would be allotted on a license basis it would not mean that in the year 2003, 22 years down the line, DDA must be bound to its earlier policy.

28. A Division Bench of this court in the judgment Wazirpur Bartan Nirmata Sangh Vs. UOI & Ors. had held that benevolence in administration is a necessity but this benevolence has to be balanced against the rights of the residents of a town specially when dealing with one commodity which can never increase, its land. The Division Bench, in para 45 had noted that in Delhi public land was being encroached upon with impunity. Policy of the Government to offer rehabilitation sites at concessional rates was encouraging illegal occupation of government land.

29. Government land is nothing but public land. It is acquired and held by the Government as a trustee of the citizens. It is the taxpayers money which is utilized by the government in acquiring and developing land. No encroacher or land grabber would have a right to compel the government to frame a concessional policy. Of course, if the government within its budgetary constraints, is able to spare money and form a policy to subsidize land to a section of the society, none could have a grievance so long as the policy is fair and reasonable.

30. Fairness and reasonableness in the policy of the Government is to be found in the Nazul rules where a category of persons is carved out as being entitled to allotment of developed Nazul Land at cheaper rates. Petitioners do not fall in the said category.

31. There being no merit in the writ petition. Dismissed.

32. No costs.