Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Developemnt Authority ...
2007 Latest Caselaw 1451 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. These two writ petitions raise common questions and are, therefore, being disposed of by this common judgment. In both the petitions the petitioners challenge the decision of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) cancelling the allotments made in their favor of Category 'A' plots under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme and allotting them category 'B' plots in lieu thereof. The petitioners seek a direction to the DDA to restore the allotment of the Category `A' plot.

2. The background to the present petitions is that the Government of India constituted a committee under the chairmanship of Shri N.V. Gadgil for determining the criteria for allotment of alternative plots to the refugees who fled from Pakistan during the Partition of 1947 and settled in Delhi on government land. The Gadgil committee categorised the refugees who had occupied the government land into three categories as under:

i. Those who have their residential occupation prior to 15th August, 1950 (which included land under commercial occupation) and had not acquired any plot/house in Delhi will be placed in category 'A'.

ii. Those persons who have occupied the premises after 15th August, 1950 but before September, 1960 were eligible for allotment of LIG/MIG flats and were categorised to be placed in category 'B'.

iii. Those squatting on the land after 1960 to 1980 were placed in category 'C' and 'D' and were eligible under allotment Jhugi Jhopri Scheme.

3. Thereafter a five-member committee, comprising officers of the DDA and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, was constituted to examine the eligibility and claims of individuals for allotment of alternate plots. It appears that this Committee examined the claims mainly on the basis of two documents:

(1) Refugee Registration Certificate (essential)

(2) Receipts regarding payment of damages assessed by the Authority on the basis of the rates levied for the first time in 1952.

Apart from the above two documents, the following documents were also examined by the five-member committee:

a. Ration Card of 1950.

b. Electric/Water/Telephone bills, date back to 1950.

c. Census slips of 1960.

d. Voter's list of June, 1951 and

e. any other letter addressed to the squatter at his place of occupation prior to 15th August, 1950.

4. Lists of persons of eligible for each category of plots were prepared on the basis of the names cleared by the five-member committee some time in 1970. Subsequently, on complaints being received that allotments had in some cases been procured by producing false or forged documents, a three-member committee was constituted by the respondent DDA to examine some of the claims. This Committee repeated the exercise of requiring the claimants to produce documents which were again examined. In June 1990 the three-member Committee gave its recommendations on the basis of which the category of plots allotted in some cases were changed from 'A' to 'B', meaning thereby a smaller plot was allotted. This led to petitions being filed in this Court by the affected persons. Pursuant to directions issued by this Court, those cases were again examined by Justice K. Ramamurthy, a retired Judge of this Court and he recommended that the category A plots be restored.

5. The present two petitions have also been filed in similar circumstances. As far as the first petition by Shri Ashok Kumar is concerned, it is claimed that the petitioner's father submitted the necessary documents in the form of a ration card and the refugee registration certificate to the five-member committee. After examining those documents, the five-member committee found the petitioner's father eligible for allotment of a Category A plot. On 27.5.1978 the DDA allotted land measuring 85.6 sq. yards in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, against plot No. T-5365 on a perpetual leasehold basis subject to certain terms and conditions. Pursuant to a demand made in this regard on 11.8.1980 the petitioner's father deposited a sum of Rs. 1080.27 with the DDA on 18.8.80. However, the petitioner's father was not put in possession of the said plot. The petitioner learnt some time in 2005 that certain similarly placed persons had approached this Court and that, pursuant to the directions of this Court, their claims were examined Justice K. Ramamurthy. When the petitioner made inquiries, he was informed that his allotment had been changed from Category 'A' to Category 'B'. At that stage, the present writ petition was filed seeking the directions aforementioned.

6. The facts in the accompanying writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 5276 of 2005 by Smt. Susheela Rani Batra are that the petitioner's husband migrated from Pakistan in 1947 and commenced living in plot No. T-5340, WEA, Karol Bagh. The petitioner's husband submitted the documents in his possession to the five-member committee which, after verifying the documents, found him eligible for allotment of a Category 'A' plot. The petitioner's husband also paid damages for occupying the government land. On 3.11.1980 he deposited the requisite sum for allotment of the Category 'A' plot measuring 85.6 sq. yards. The petitioner's husband died on 9.1.1980. Thereafter the petitioner kept following up with the DDA for the allotment of the plot. After coming to know of the re-examination of some of the claims by Justice K. Ramamurthy, pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the petitioner made enquiries and was informed that her allotment category had been changed from 'A' to 'B'. At that stage the present writ petition was filed.

7. The DDA has filed its reply in both the matters, taking more or less a similar stand. A preliminary objection has been raised that the petitions are barred by laches since neither petitioner has approached the court within a reasonable time to challenge the recommendations of the three-member committee which were made way back in June 1990. DDA further points out that each of the petitioners was allotted the B category plot in a computerized draw held in 2002 after public notice, which fact has not been disclosed by the petitioners. On merits, it is contended that there was a complaint against each of the petitioners that they had produced false documents before the five-member committee. It is submitted that a three-member committee had thereafter re-examined the claims and come to the conclusion that the petitioners should be allotted Category 'B' plots instead of Category 'A' plots.

8. The petitioners were asked by this Court to produce the original documents. These have been perused.

9. Shri Kishan Lal, father of Shri Ashok Kumar, produced before the five-member committee the refugee registration certificate dated 2.6.1948 issued in his name which shows that he migrated from Mandi Phularwal in Pakistan. He also produced the ration card issued on 23.5.1950 and the duplicate ration card issued on 31.12.1953, which bears the number of the original ration card as well. A document dated 31.3.1962 issued for payment of damages has also been produced. Then there is a copy of the order passed by the DDA pursuant to an eviction notice dated 2.7.1963 which required the petitioner to pay damages on account of unauthorized occupation of government land. Similarly the damages were paid even on 21.8.1978. What is significant is that the five-member committee which examined these documents has affixed a rubber stamp to that effect on the original documents.

10. As far as the three-member committee is concerned its findings in respect of Shri Ashok Kumar read as under:

Shri Krishan Lal S/o Shri Hira Nand appeared before the committee along with his counsel. No additional document has been submitted by him in support of his claim. Since, he is paying damages w.e.f. 1.1.52 and has furnished the copy of Ration card at the address T-5365 issued in the name of Sh. Krishan Lal S/o Shri Hira Nand, he is placed under category 'B' against premises No. T-5365.

11. The three-member Committee gives no reasons for disbelieving the documents produced by the petitioner which have been perused and believed by the five-member committee. In course of arguments learned Counsel for the DDA sought to suggest that the date on the ration card, claimed to have been issued prior to August 1950, was not clear. However, that is not the reason given by the three-member committee for re-categorising the entitlement from A to B. This document is in fact not discussed by it whereas it is undisputed that the five-member committee has examined this document and made its recommendations that the petitioner's father would be eligible for a category A plot. This Court finds that the procedure adopted and the conclusions arrived at in this case by the three-member Committee, to overturn the recommendations of the predecessor five-member Committee, is unsatisfactory.

12. As regards the second petition by Smt. Susheela Rani Batra, here again the approach of the three-member committee has been to go entirely by the complaint. It appears that the petitioner's husband had produced before the five-member Committee the refugee registration certificate and a ration card of 30.1.1950. The fact that these documents were examined by the five-member committee is not denied. The originals bear the rubber stamp mark to this effect.

13. What appears to have weighed with the three-member committee is that in respect of an agreement entered into by the Estate Office, Ministry of Rehabilitation on 1.7.1948 with the brother of the petitioner's husband, a copy of which was produced by the petitioner's husband in proof of his residence at Karol Bagh, an enquiry was made. The reply given by the Ministry of Rehabilitation to the DDA on 25.5.1990 was that the agreement stated to have been entered into in the month of July 1948 was not available in the office since the files started only from 1957. This coupled with the fact that the voter's list produced was of 1951 which showed occupation of house No. T-5349 (and not 5340) led the three-member committee to conclude that the proof of residence was only from 1951 and not earlier.

14. The plea of the learned Counsel for the DDA in the course of arguments was that the refugee registration certificate was torn in half; that the date in some of the documents was missing and that the signature of the petitioner's husband in some others was in a different ink. It was suggested that the records were manipulated and therefore the re-categorisation was justified.

15. This Court is unable to accept the contentions of the DDA. At the outset it requires to be recalled that this Court by order dated 12.9.2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 491 of 1987 (Jagbhushan Lal v. Union of India) observed that the existence of the refugee registration certificate is essential before a person can be considered for allotment under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme. The other documents like ration card, census slips and voter slips were only meant to corroborate the true identity of the persons. There is no denial in either of these cases that the refugee registration certificate has indeed been produced. The plea that in respect of Smt. Susheela Rani Batra this document was torn cannot be examined at this stage when a five-member committee has already examined it and held that the petitioner's husband is entitled to a category 'A' plot. Likewise, the plea about the signatures being in different ink or the documents being manipulated were not what weighed with the three-member committee. The DDA cannot now seek to add fresh reasons to what formed the basis of the decision of the three-member committee which is assailed in this petition.

16. This Court does not want to undertake the exercise of re-examining the documents to find out if they are genuine or not. That exercise has already been performed by a five-member committee way back in 1970. The Court is only called upon to find out if there was sufficient material and reasons for the three-member committee to overturn the findings and recommendation of the predecessor five-member committee. The record shows that the three-member committee recommended re-categorisation of the allotment from A to B, not on the basis that the earlier committee erred in its conclusions but that records earlier to 1957 were missing. This factor should have actually gone in favor of the petitioner here since DDA has failed to discharge the burden of showing that there is no agreement as contended by the petitioner. As regards the voter's list, as pointed out by this Court in Jagbhushan Lal, that document can at best be only a secondary source when the primary proof is the refugee certificate itself. The claim cannot be negated on the basis of the voter's list alone when several other documents show to the contrary. Therefore, in this case as well, the approach and conclusions arrived by the three-member committee is highly unsatisfactory. There was no justifiable reason for the three-member committee to overturn the findings and recommendation of the predecessor five-member committee.

17. In both the cases, the DDA never bothered to inform either of the petitioners that their respective allotments had been re-categorised from plot 'A' to 'B'. Consequently, they were not informed of the reasons for such re-categorisation. The reasons were produced only later when the petitioners made enquiries. The draw whereby they were allotted plots of the B category was held only in 2002. In that view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be blamed for not approaching the court earlier. The DDA's plea of laches is without merit.

18. For the above reasons, this Court holds that the denial by the DDA to each of the petitioners of a category 'A' plot under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme is unfair and unreasonable. The petitioners are entitled to succeed.

19. At the time of hearing of these matters the Court wanted the DDA to inform whether category 'A' plots would still be available for allotment. In its written submissions the DDA has stated that while plot 'B' allotted to each of the petitioners remains vacant, there is no category A plot available either in the same locality or in the neighborhood.

20. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the DDA to re-categorise each of the petitioners as being entitled to a category 'A' plot under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme. It is further directed that if a category `A' plot is not found in the same locality or in the adjoining area then the DDA must offer a plot of the similar size in any other area in Delhi. It is open to the petitioners to point out to the DDA if a plot of that size in the same or any other area is available for allotment. The necessary orders by way of implementation of these directions will be passed by the DDA within four weeks from today and in any event not later than September 8, 2007.

21. With the above directions the writ petitions are allowed with costs of Rs. 5000 each to the petitioners which shall be paid by the DDA, also within a period of four weeks and in any event not later than September 8, 2007.