Delhi High Court
A.P. Gulati vs Land & Development Officer & ... on 27 October, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4361/2007
A.P.GULATI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajiv Dawar, Adv.
versus
LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE & ANR .... Respondent
Through Mr. B.V. Niren, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 27.10.2009
1. The petitioner's father Mr. R.B. Gulati was granted lease hold right in
respect of the property Nos. 181 to 184, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi,
vide lease deed dated 30th July, 1960.
2. There was additional strip of land measuring 80 sq. yards adjacent to
the abovesaid property. By letter dated 10th August, 1971, written to Mr.
A.P. Gulati, Ministry of Rehabilitation, offered to allot the said additional
strip of land on the terms and conditions stipulated therein. Rs. 8,000/-
towards costs of the additional strip of land was to be deposited within 15
days of allotment after obtaining the necessary challan. The said letter
records that if acceptance was not notified within 15 days, the offer would
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 1
be deemed to have been withdrawn. Thereafter, lease deed for the
additional land was to be executed in the form approved by the
Government of India.
3. Mr. R.B. Gulati by his letter dated 25th August, 1971, submitted that
he had accepted the allotment/transfer of the additional strip of land
measuring 80 sq. yards, but objected to the cost of Rs. 8,000/- as
demanded on various grounds. He further submitted that the lease for
additional strip of land should be executed without demanding any further
amount or the amount should be calculated at the rate prevalent in the
year, 1955.
4. The Ministry of Rehabilitation considered the request of the Mr. R.B.
Gulati and by their letter dated 1st November, 1971 informed that no
payment had been received till date and payment should be made within
15 days after obtaining requisite challan and in case payment was not
made, the offer made earlier would be treated as withdrawn.
5. Mr. R.B. Gulati did not make the payment as stated in the letter
dated 1st November, 1971 and by his letter dated 5th November, 1971, he
again protested stating that he and not his son Mr. A.P. Gulati, was the
owner of the property and the records may be corrected. He further stated
that the price might be recalculated. It appears that Mr. R.B. Gulati made
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 2
representations dated 26th April, 1972 and 5th May, 1972, but there was no
response from the Ministry of Rehabilitation.
6. Vide letters dated 15th April, 1974 and 24th June, 1974, late Mr. R.B.
Gulati sent to separate cheques of Rs. 8,000/- to the Ministry of
Rehabilitation. It is an admitted fact that the said cheques were not
encahsed by the Ministry of Rehabilitation. In these circumstances, it
cannot be said that the Ministry of Rehabilitation had accepted the
consideration for transfer of the plot in terms of their earlier letter dated
10th August, 1971 and 1st November, 1971. As stated above, the letter
dated 1st November, 1971 had stipulated that in case payment was not
made within 15 days, the offer sent earlier would be treated as withdrawn.
The offer was not accepted by Mr. R.B. Gulati, who had repeatedly
protested about the quantum of consideration demanded. Writing letters
dated 15th April, 1974 and 24th June, 1974 enclosing therewith two separate
cheques of Rs. 8,000/-, which were not encashed by the Ministry of
Rehabilitation, do not confer any right on late Mr. R.B. Gulati or his
successors. Merely sending cheques by post and receiving the same, does
not amount to acceptance.
7. Late Mr. R.B. Gulati wrote letters dated 6th January, 1975, 18th July,
1975 and 16th August, 1975 to the Ministry of Rehabilitation pressing his
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 3
request for allotment of the additional strip of land. In the meanwhile,
Ministry of Rehabilitation issued notice dated 14th November, 1975 under
Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 to Mr. R.B. Gulati for unauthorized occupation of
land, the strip of land adjacent to plot No.182, New Rajinder Nagar, New
Delhi.
8. Mr. R.B. Gulati died and the lease hold rights were mutated in favour
of the petitioner in terms of the letter dated 26th November, 1985. There
was complete silence by the petitioner thereafter for about 20 years.
9. In 2004, the petitioner; Mr. A.P. Gulati made a request for allotment
of the additional strip of land. Reference was made to the earlier letters
written by the Ministry of Rehabilitation dated 10th August, 1971 and 1st
November, 1971 and two cheques of Rs. 8,000/-, which were sent by late
Mr. R.B. Gulati in 1974, vide letters dated 15th April, 1974 and 24th June,
1974, which were never encashed. The petitioner sent a cheque of Rs.
8,000/- for allotment of additional strip of land vide letter dated 29th July,
2005. This cheque was returned back along with the letter dated 10th
October, 2005, stating inter alia that additional strip of land was not
allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter wrote some letters in
2005 and filed this writ petition in May, 2007.
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 4
9. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief on the basis of the offer
letters dated 10th August, 1971 and 1st November, 1971. As per the said
letters, the payments were required to be made within 15 days. The letter
dated 1st November, 1971, specifically stipulated that in case payment was
not made within 15 days, the offer would be treated as withdrawn.
Admittedly, no payment was made within 15 days. Thereafter in 1974, vide
letters dated 15th April, 1974 and 24th June, 1974, two separate cheques of
Rs.8,000/- were sent to the Ministry of Rehabilitation, but the said cheques
were never encashed. Mr. R.B. Gulati wrote some letters to the
respondents for allotment of the additional strip of land. It cannot be said
that any concluded and binding contract came into existence between the
respondents and late Mr. R.B. Gulati, the father of the petitioner. The
petitioner had remained quiet for a long period of time from 1985 and only
in the year 2004, the petitioner again started making representation for
allotment of additional strip of land measuring 80 sq. yards. The writ
petition has no merit and is dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready
and willing to pay the current cost of the land. The petitioner is at liberty to
make a request to the respondents. If, any such request is made, the same
will be considered by the respondents in terms of their policy. In the facts
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 5
and circumstances of the present case, there will be no order as to cost.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
OCTOBER 27, 2009
NA
WPC No.4361-2007 Page 6
