Krishan Gopal Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority
2005 Latest Caselaw 1291 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Ten bigha of land in village Madipur belonging to the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1971 vide award No. 1691 of 1970-71.

2. As per policy under which large scale acquisition of lands are being effected in Delhi, petitioner was entitled to be considered for allotment of one residential plot. After 17 years of the acquisition, on 30.12.1988. Land and Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi recommended allotment of a residential plot. Since DDA had to effect the allotment, recommendation was forwarded to DDA.

3. DDA entered the name of the petitioner at a draw of lots. A plot was offered to the petitioner in the year 1995. Petitioner was not happy with the allotment made for the reason he claims that the land which was allotted was in an undeveloped sector. This fact is disputed by DDA. That need not bother us for the reason it is an admitted case of the parties that petitioner was entitled to be considered for a specific allotment of a plot on three occasions. Effect of the petitioner not accepting the first allotment was that the same was cancelled and petitioner became entitled to inclusion of his name at a second draw of lots.

4. At the second draw of lots held somewhere in the year 2003, plot No. 1, Pocket-I, Block-C, Sector 28, Rohini Residential Scheme was allotted to the petitioner.

5. On 8.7.2003 a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner. As per the said demand-cum-allotment letter, following two payments had to be made by the petitioner within time as noted hereunder:

(i) Rs. 3,28,327/- within 60 days;

(ii) Rs. 3,88,900/- within further 60 days.

6. The two payments aforesaid would have covered 85% of the price of the plot. As per the demand-cum-allotment letter, balance 15% had to be deposited within 30 days of the letter offering possession to the petitioner.

7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner deposited neither Installments within the stipulated time. It is also not in dispute that on 17.5.2004 petitioner deposited Rs. 3.44 lacs towards the first Installment and some interest which petitioner thought was to be paid by him for late payment and on 24.5.2004 petitioner paid Rs. 4.41 lacs towards the second Installment and the interest which the petitioner thought was to be paid.

8. Reckoned from the last date within which the first and the second Installment had to be paid there is delay of 8 months and 11 days in effecting payment of the first Installment and a delay of 6 months and 19 days in effecting payment of the second Installment.

9. Since petitioner was a defaulter-DDA did not offer possession of the plot. Notwithstanding that, petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1.96 lacs on 1.6.2004. Petitioner claims to have tendered the said amount towards the balance 15% of the price payable.

10. For record I may note that the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice by DDA on 17.5.2004 to show cause as to why the allotment be not cancelled in case petitioner had not effected the requisite deposits within time.

11. Though not on record in the present petition, in other cases it has come to the notice of this Court that DDA had passed a resolution vide agenda item No. 52/2004. The resolution sets out certain circumstances under which delay in making payment was to be condoned and restoration ordered. Clause II of the Resolution reads as under:

"(i) In case of delay beyond 180 days Principal Commissioner should have the powers to condone up to 270 days, (inclusive of 180 days).

This regularisation will be done on payment of restoration charges and penal rate of interest at the rate of 15% p.a. However, if the fault is of the Department then restoration irrespective of the period of delay should be at PDR of the year of allotment + interest at 5% annually.

(ii) Beyond one year no regularisation should be entertained unless on extremely deserving grounds where the power should lie with the Hon'ble Lt. Governor."

12. Petitioner would accordingly be entitled to be considered under the policy resolution aforesaid.

13. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner never approached the Competent Authority under the resolution and had petitioner done so, Competent Authority would have considered the representation of the petitioner in the context of the policy and the facts of financial hardship which the petitioner may have presented. Counsel contends that since the petitioner did not submit the necessary representation, petitioner cannot be granted any benefit under the policy decision.

14. Under normal circumstances would have accepted the stand taken by learned Counsel for DDA. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner comes from a rural background. He hardly understands the nitty grities of law.

15. In the year 1971, 10 bigha land belonging to the petitioner was acquired in Village Madipur. I am given to understand that the colony of Paschim Vihar stands developed by DDA on the said land. Just a few days back if my memory does not fail, DDA had auctioned plots in said colony where revenue earned by DDA was more than Rs. 350 crores. I also cannot close my eyes to the facts that as per the large scale acquisition policy under which the affected farmers are allotted a residential plot purpose thereof is to provide some alternative avenue to the farmers who, on acquisition of their lands, lose their livelihood. I also cannot lose site of the fact that except for monitory compensation for the acquired land, in India there is no policy of providing alternative means of livelihood to the farmers. I also cannot lose sight of the fact that petitioner was offered an alternative plot firstly in the year 1995 which he refused and the secondly offered was in the year, 2003.

16. Looked at from another angle, reasonableness of State action would require the Slate to notify to the citizens all beneficial resolutions under which the citizens can make necessary representation to the DDA. Unfortunately, the policy resolution noted by me hereinabove was never notified to the petitioner.

17. Be that as it may, substantial payments have flown from the pocket of the petitioner to DDA. As noted above, petitioner has paid not only whatever he had to pay towards 100% cost of the plot, but has paid some interest as well.

18. In my opinion, petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of policy resolution No. 52/05 notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner did not move the necessary application to DDA for extension of time. I may clarify that I am granting the said benefit to the petitioner for the reason petitioner has made 100% payment of the plot and the payment has been within the limit of 270 days, being the period up to which petitioner as per the policy resolution is entitled to be considered for extension of time.

19. Writ petition stands disposed of quashing the impugned letter dated 22.12.2004 (Annexure P.13). Mandamus is issued to DDA to grant benefit of policy resolution No. 52/04. DDA would work out the demand as per the policy resolution in respect of the interest payable. After giving adjustment of the amount paid by the petitioner in excess of the demand, which petitioner claims he has paid towards interest, if any further amount is payable same be notified to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today. The demand would be cleared by the petitioner within 2 weeks of receipt of the demand. On the petitioner paying the requisite stamp duty on the conveyance deed, necessary conveyance deed would be executed by DDA. Needless to state that on the petitioner paying the demand as would be worked out, if at all, possession of the plot would be given to the petitioner within 30 days. If no demand is raised on the petitioner, petitioner would be given possession of the plot within 2 months from today. If any excess has been deposited by the petitioner, learned Counsel for the petitioner states DDA may retain the same.

20. No costs.