Ravi Lal Patel Saw Mills vs Delhi Development Authority
2007 Latest Caselaw 1366 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Muralidhar, J.

1. The petitioner was running a saw mill at property No. 2140/2, Behind Hari Masjid, Street No. 2, Paharganj, New Delhi, which apparently was a non-conforming area. In the late 1960s the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) framed a scheme for shifting industries from non-conforming areas to conforming areas. Pursuant thereto, in lieu of the Paharganj property, the petitioner was on 7.2.1990 allotted a plot at No. 3, Block No. 2, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi measuring 400.50 sq.yds at the rate of Rs. 400/- per sq.yd. The petitioner paid the amount as demand and was put in possession of the property at Kirti Nagar on 12.9.1977. Thereafter, a perpetual lease deed was executed on 3.8.1978 in favor of the petitioner. Pursuant to the permission granted in that behalf, the petitioner also completed the construction on the property at Kirti Nagar in 1980, within the time stipulated.

2. The petitioner's case is that thereafter the DDA officials threatened to cancel the lease and dispossess the petitioner from the Kirti Nagar property. He filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi. An interim injunction issued in the said suit was confirmed by the trial court on 3.8.1991. The appeal filed by the DDA against the order granting interim injunction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge on 20.2.1993 in RCA No. 18 of 1992. The civil revision petition filed thereagainst by the DDA, C.R. No. 524 of 1993, was dismissed by this Court on 29.7.1993.

3. Notwithstanding the interim order having been made absolute petitioner is stated to have been harassed from the DDA officials and accordingly approached the Permanent Lok Adalat ('PLA') instituted by the DDA. In the proceedings before the PLA, the case of the DDA was that the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 9.4.1987 for alleged sale of the Paharganj property to a third party contrary to the conditions of the lease and consequently the lease for the Kirti Nagar property stood cancelled on 25.5.1987. According to DDA its field staff reported that instead of handing over the possession of the Pahar Ganj property, in lieu of which the petitioner was allotted the property at Kirti Nagar, he had sold the Paharganj property to Shri Jaswinder Singh son of Shri Bakshish Singh who had started a raising puce building thereon. On that basis action was initiated to cancel the allotment of the Kirti Nagar property.

4. The PLA in a very detailed order dated 16.1.2001 examined the complete records of the case. The PLA required the Director (Lands) to appear on 19.12.2000 and recorded in the said order as under:

Mrs. Asma Manzar, the then Director (Lands) on 19.12.2000 before me had admitted that in case no document/proof is found regarding sale of the plot at Pahar Ganj it would be a case of incorrect determination of lease. The original files of Industrial Branch, Damages Section and Vigilance Department have been called with concerned officer who have not been able to produce even a single document or official noting to suggest that the petitioner or any of its partners had ever sold the Pahar Ganj plot to anyone or to Sh. Jaswinder Singh sonof Shri Bakshish Singh as alleged in the unofficial note dated 8.4.1997 made by Shri S.S. Tyagi, the then Dy. Director (Lands) which was the basis of cancellation of lease. The law does not permit such punitive section of determination of perpetual lease of a plot for which the entire premium was paid as early as in 1972 by such actions without following the procedures established by law and principles of natural justice. I am, therefore, of the considered view that cancellation/ determination of lease was bad in law and cannot stand the test of judicial probity or scrutiny. I, therefore, recommend that determination of lease as revoked and plot be restored.

5. A case was sought to be made by the DDA before the PLA that Shri Jaswinder Singh, to whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold the plot at Paharganj, had in turn transferred its possession to Shri Kanhaiya Lal son of Shri Petha Bhai. The PLA then proceeded to enquire into the truth of this contention and concluded as under:

If we presume for the sake of argument that Shri Kanhaiya Lal son of Shri. Petha Bhai was in unauthorized possession of this plot when this note was put up by the Estate Officer-II, it was not too late at that time to retrieve the possession of the plot from Shri Kanhaiya Lal as by that time he had no legal legs to stand as assessment of damages was got made by him in collusion with DDA staff only in 1985-86. Thus it was a sheer case of inaction, inefficiency or collision between the DDA officials of various concerned branches/sections and Shri Kanhaiya Lal son of Shri Petha Bhai for permitting him to obtain possession of plot and to remain in unauthorized occupation of already vacated plot No. 2140/2 Hari Masjid, Paharganj, New Delhi.

Collusion of DDA officials and Shri Kanhaiya Lal is proved beyond doubt by the material placed before me.

6. The further case advanced by the DDA was that the petitioner here was privy to possession being handed over to Shri Kanhaiya Lal son of Shri Petha Singh. Relaince was placed on a General Power of Attorney to which the petitioner was stated to have been a witness. These documents were examined in a great detail by the PLA and it concluded as under:

From the perusal of the voluminous LSB (I) file I find more than 50 documents signed by Shri Ravi Lal Patel including the application dated 14.10.66 and perpetual lease deed dated 31.7.1978/ 2.8.1978, all of which have been signed by Shri Ravi Lal Patel in english language. However, the GPA in question bears signature of someone in Gujarati without any parentage which can be read as Sh. Ram Lal also. It is common knowledge that whenever such documents are executed and registered parentage of attesting witnesses is always mentioned which is not the case in this document. No reliance can be placed on this documents to find fault with Shri Ravi Lal Patel. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that this document was indeed attested by Shri Ravi Lal it would not lead us anywhere as the DDA having already assessed damages up to 31.3.1985 in favor of Shri Kanhaiya Lal, Shri Ravi Lal Patel would have no objection if Shri Kanhaiya Lal appointed his attorney to look after the said plot which DDA could always get vacated by following due process of law by obtaining eviction order from the Estate Officer.

7. Ultimately the PLA by the said order dated 16.1.2001 made the following recommendations:

I, therefore, strongly feel and recommend that the cancellation/ determination of lease affected by the competent authority on 3.5.1987/7.5.1987 be revoked and the allotment of industrial plot be restored to the petitioner who has undertaken to withdraw the case pending in the court of law and to pay restoration charges of the plot if it is permitted by the policy of the DDA. I, therefore, direct that copy of this order along with requisite record be submitted to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor for his kind necessary approval. Case is adjourned to 27.2.2001 awaiting decision of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Delhi.

8. The matter was placed before the Lt. Governor on the recommendations of the PLA. He recorded the decision on 27.6.2001 declined to restore the plot and stated as under: "Let us first secure possession of the land in Paharganj. The case filed by M/s. Ravi Lal Patel Saw Mills may continue and we may seek an early decision from Court. Should we succeed in getting possession of the Paharganj plot, we will then agree to restoration of lease of Kirit Nagar plot to M/s. Ravi Lal Patel."

On the basis of the above statement the proceedings before the PLA were closed.

9. The proceedings appear to have revived before the PLA thereafter when it was informed that no action had been taken by the DDA to recover the possession of the Paharganj property. The PLA concluded that the two unauthorized occupants, i.e. Shri Kanahiya Lal and Shri Jaswinder Singh, had been permitted by the DDA by its own act "omissions or commissions" to remain on the Pharganj plot. The PLA also recorded that the "collusion of revenue staff of the DDA is apparent." In those circumstances the PLA by its order dated 1.10.2002 recommended that the Lt. Governor should restore the lease of Kirti Nagar property in favor of the petitioner.

10. Thereafter the matter was placed before the Vice Chairman who by an order dated 10.1.2003 made a recommendation to the Lt. Governor that possession of property No. 2140/2 Paharganj should be taken by the DDA by sealing it. The Lt. Governor by his endorsement dated 17.1.2003 approved this action.

11. The records of the case show that the property at Pahar Ganj was thereafter sealed and the file was again placed before the Lt. Governor for implementation of the remaining part of his decision dated 27.6.2001 which was to restore the lease in respect of the property at Kirti Nagar in favor of the petitioner. However, on 30.7.2003 the Lt. Governor passed the following order on the file:

The case does not need restoration at this stage. The case filed by M/s. Ravi Lal Patel Saw Mills should be decided first by the Civil Court and DDA should pursue the case and seek an early decision.

12. As a result of the above decision, the petitioner once again approached the PLA. The PLA by its order dated 20.7.2004 noted that the decision dated 30.7.2003 of the Lt. Governor contradicted the earlier decision dated 27.6.2001 by which the Lt.Governor had ordered that the DDA should take possession of the property at Paharganj before restoring the lease in favor of the petitioner in respect of the Kirti Nagar plot. At the subsequent hearing before the PLA on 7.12.2004 the PLA was informed that the Lt. Governor had declined to review the decision taken on 30.7.2003. Accordingly, the case was closed as unsettled.

13. The petitioner then filed this writ petition on 21.3.2005 praying a direction to quash the decision dated 3.5.1987/7.5.1987 of the DDA cancelling the lease in respect of the Kirti Nagar plot and for a mandamus to the DDA to restore the said lease.

14. The records of the case which have been perused by the Court in some detail show that there was determination on facts by the PLA way back on 16.1.2001 in favor of the petitioner. The said decision was based on a detailed examination of the records. The PLA returned the finding that the case of the DDA that the petitioner had sold the property to Shri Jaswinder Singh who in turn had inducted Shri Kanhaiya Lal had absolutely no legs to stand. The case of the DDA that the petitioner had colluded in putting Shri Kanhaiya Lal in possession of the Paharganj plot was also disbelieved. The DDA never actually disagreed with or challenged the findings of fact of its PLA.

15. It requires to be recalled at this stage that the PLA was established as an Alternate Dispute Resolution mechanism by the DDA pursuant to the decision of this Court in Abdul Hassan v. Delhi Vidyut Board . Further the PLA has also received statutory recognition under Sections 22 and 22-A to 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSAA). The DDA should not be permitted to wriggle out of the binding effect of the decision on facts of its PLA merely because it is not in consonance with the decision taken on those facts earlier by the DDA. Otherwise, the purpose of referring the dispute to the PLA would be defeated and from the point of view of the person aggrieved by the decision of the DDA, going before the PLA would be a needless waste of time and effort. This is after all an in-house ADR mechanism and a senior member of the judiciary is usually requested to assume this responsibility. This Court notes with some concern that there have been other cases too where the Court has found that where the decision of the PLA is inconvenient to it, the DDA seeks to avoid implementing the recommendation, without challenging it. [See for instance, Darshana Devi v. DDA 2007 (VI) AD (Del) 169]

16. At one stage the course of action suggested by the Lt.Governor by his order dated 27.6.2001 was that the DDA must first regain possession of the Paharganj plot as a pre-condition for restoring the lease in favor of the petitioner in respect of the Kirti Nagar plot. Although the Lt.Governor noted that "the case filed by M/s Ravi Lal Patel may continue and we may seek an early decision from Court", he nevertheless added "Should we succeed in getting possession of the Paharganj plot, we will then agree to restoration of lease of Kirti Nagar plot to M/s. Ravi Lal Patel." What this shows is that even the Lt.Governor implicitly accepted that after the determination of the case on facts by its own PLA, the DDA should proceed to restore the lease of the Kirti Nagar plot in the event possession of the Paharganj plot was regained. The PLA was also informed of such decision and the case was closed by the PLA on this basis at that stage. It is inexplicable that after the possession of the Paharganj plot was regained by the DDA, the Lt. Governor virtually backtracked by his decision dated 30.9.2003 stating the Civil Court should first decide the case. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the PLA was justified in observing that the subsequent order dated 30.9.2003 of the Lt. Governor contradicted his earlier decision dated 27.6.2001.

17. The decision of the Lt.Governor to await the decision of the civil court was, in the facts and circumstances noticed before, not a reasonable one. In the first place, the interim injunction in favor of the petitioner attained finality up to this Court. It was never sought to be further challenged by the DDA. After the finding on facts by the PLA by its decision dated 16.1.2001, arrived at after examining the records in great detail, there was virtually nothing left for the civil court to decide. The PLA had found that the petitioner had not committed any breach of the conditions of the lease. The DDA did not, and possibly could not, question the findings of its own PLA. To await the decision of the civil court thereafter was really postponing the inevitable decision which the DDA could not dispute. This only resulted in a further unnecessary delay in restoring the lease in respect of the Kirti Nagar property favor of the petitioner.

18. On possible course that could have been adopted in the circumstances by the DDA would have been to require the petitioner to withdraw the case before the civil court as a pre-condition for restoring the lease of the property at Kirti Nagar. However, that was not done. Instead, the file indicates that the following note was prepared on 7.9.2004: "In another High Court matter (CWP 1774/2003 : Pahar Ganj Timber Dealers Association v. DDA) the High Court has ordered to take action in all such cases of shopkeepers/flat owners of Pahar Ganj who were allotted plot in Kirti Nagar but who have not vacated their old premises or have sold them to third persons (as appears to be the case here). Therefore, Lok Adalat's recommendations (336/c) that L.G.'s orders at pre page need to be reconsidered; would be difficult to accept for consideration." To the subsequent note based on the above note, the Lt. Governor simply appended a single word "agreed" on 1.10.2004. There can be no manner of doubt that this note prepared for the approval of the Lt.Governor was misleading and contrary to the findings of the PLA. Further, it is unfortunate that the Lt. Governor overlooked the background facts of the case and the records and simply appended his approval to such a note.

19. The Court is of the considered view that the DDA was wholly unjustified in not accepting the recommendations of its PLA, made on more than two occasions, that the petitioner's lease in respect of the property at Kirti Nagar should be restored. Accordingly, the decision of the DDA dated 3.5.1987/7.5.1987 canceling the lease of the petitioner in favor of the petitioner in respect of the property at Kirti Nagar is hereby quashed. The petitioner is in possession of the property and so no further directions are required to be issued in that regard.

20. As regards the suit pending in the civil court, Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the above order, the petitioner will no longer pursue the said suit. He further submits that this Court should record the said submission of the petitioner and direct that the suit is withdrawn to this Court and disposed of in terms of the present order. Accordingly, it is directed that the Civil Suit No. 368 of 1987 which is stated to be pending in the Court of Shri J.P. Narain, Civil Judge, and which is listed for hearing on 10.9.2007, is hereby withdrawn to this Court and disposed of in terms of the present order.

21. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 5,000 which will be paid by the DDA to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

22. A certified copy of order be sent by the Registry to the Court of Mr.J.P. Narain, Civil Judge within a period of one week from today.