Rupendra Grewal vs V.C, Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 3529 Del

*                IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C.) No.14453/2005

%                        Date of Decision: 03.09.2009

Rupendra Grewal                                       .... Petitioner
                         Through Mr.Ram Ekbal Roy and Mr.M.P. Jha,
                                 Advocates.

                                  Versus

V.C, Delhi Development Authority                   .... Respondent
                    Through Mr.M.K. Singh, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                 YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                    NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in                NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. Petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent DDA to allot

alternative site to him after demise of his father in view of the general

policy regarding allotment by the respondent after demolition of

automobile workshop of his father in 1967.

2. The petitioner has asserted that his father Sh.Ajaib Singh was in

occupation of land measuring 378 sq.yards and another piece of land

measuring 170 sq.yards for commercial use thus having total 548

sq.yards at Upper Bela Road, New Delhi since 1955 after being

displaced from West Pakistan. According to the petitioner his father

started a motor workshop under the name and style of M/s. Ajvendra

Motor Works, Bela Road, New Delhi. The workshop of the father of the

petitioner was demolished by respondent on 17th June, 1967 and a

demolition slip No.25 dated 17th June, 1967 was issued in the name of

the father of the petitioner after completion of the eviction proceedings

under the Public Premises Act.

3. The petitioner contended that in accordance with letter dated 10th

September, 1978 regarding allotment of alternative plot in Mayapuri,

the executive officer required documentary evidence. By another letter

dated 13th August, 1990 the coordinating officer demanded arrears of

outstanding damages of Rs.3,979.65/-. According to the petitioner

pursuant to letter dated 13th August, 1990 an amount of Rs.3,980/-

was deposited by his father by receipt No.242029 vide book no.2421 on

20th August, 1990.

4. The petitioner has contended that his father was discriminated in

not allotting an alternative plot, as other evictees whose structures

were demolished along with workshop of the father of the petitioner,

were allotted alternative plot in Jhandewalan vide File No.TN-16(60)63

but the case of his father was not considered. The father of the

petitioner is alleged to have written letters to the Vice Chairman of the

respondent No.1, however, no reply was received.

5. The petitioner had also represented his case to permanent Lok

Adalat of DDA which recommended the case of the petitioner on 21st

October, 2003, a copy of the order of permanent Lok Adalat had been

filed by the petitioner.

6. The grievance of the petitioner is that the recommendation was

made by the permanent Lok Adalat by order dated 21st October, 2003,

therefore, the petitioner stopped appearing before the permanent Lok

Adalat as his case was to be considered by the Vice Chairman of the

respondent. However, later on Lok Adalat dismissed the claim of the

petitioner by order dated 14th December, 2004 but while dismissing the

claim of the petitioner, liberty was given to him to approach the

appropriate forum and consequent thereto the petitioner has filed the

present petition on the ground that his case has not been recommended

on account of not submitting the relevant documents which included,

valid municipal license; whether the petitioner industry was functional

or not in the conforming area; whether the unit was engaged in

manufacturing activities of industrial goods and that the unit of the

petitioner was registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act.

The petitioner has contended that after 37 years the DDA could not

have asked for these documents and for non submission of these

documents, the allotment of alternative plot should not have been

denied to him.

7. The petitioner in the circumstances has sought allotment of an

alternative plot on the ground that his father was in unauthorized

occupation of the Government land comprising of 378 sq.yards plus

additional 170 sq.yards for commercial purposes who was evicted in

general demolition on 17th June, 1967 and damages were paid with

effect from 1st January, 1952 to 17th June, 1967, Rs.780/- were paid in

1975 and the balance of Rs.3980/- was paid in 1990.

8. The petition is contested by the respondent DDA contending

inter-alia that the land which was under the unauthorized occupation

of the father of the petitioner was required for widening of the road and

though he had 548 sq.yards in his occupation, however, a demolition

slip of 350 sq.yards of the commercial land was issued on 17th June,

1967. The respondent DDA also admitted that the father of the

petitioner had paid Rs.780/- during 1985 and the balance of Rs.3980/-

was paid in the year 1990.

9. The respondent also relied on letter dated 10th August, 1978 sent

by Estate Officer (Commercial) in response to the PUC received from the

Ministry of Works and Housing demanding from Ajaib Singh to furnish

certificate from the demolition authority and the name of the authority;

documentary evidence regarding existence of business showing

municipal license, Sales Tax Registration, Income Tax Registration

Certificate, Factory License and registration under Shops and

Establishment Act, detailed site plan of the demolished premises

showing the covered area under the occupation of the father of the

petitioner and photocopies of the receipts showing damages paid to

DDA.

10. The respondent admitted that in reply to the said letter dated 10th

August, 1978 Sh.Ajaib Singh father of the petitioner submitted

photocopies of the demolition slips issued by demolition authority in the

year 1967 and attested copy of the identity card dated 9th November,

1955 and 10 photocopies of the receipts about payment of damages and

photocopy of the letter issued by DDA. It is contended that in respect of

remaining documents the petitioner even had communicated that he

does not have MCD license nor was registered under the Shops and

neither Establishment Act nor he was an Income Tax or Sales Tax

payee.

11. The respondent has insisted that under the scheme of alternative

allotment the unit is liable to meet the requirement of submitting a

valid municipal license, functioning of the unit in a non conforming

area, old site was required to be surrendered to DDA, unit should have

been engaged in manufacturing activities of industrial goods and that

the unit should be registered under the Delhi Shops and Establishment

Act.

12. Regarding allotment of alternative plots to other evictees of the

areas it is contended that those evictees had completed the required

formalities as detailed hereinabove and since the father of the petitioner

failed to furnish the required document, therefore, his request for

allotment of alternative industrial plot was rejected.

13. The rejoinder was also filed on behalf of petitioner reiterating the

averments made in the petition. The petitioner, however, gave the

specific details of the persons who were having their motor works in the

area namely M/s.Astaj Motor Works, M/s.Gulzar Motor Works,

M/s.Balwant Motor Works and M/s.Salman Motor Works who have

been allotted alternative site as has been allegedly noted in the file of

the respondent at page 55c.

14. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondent. The reliance has been placed by the counsel for the

petitioner on the observations of the Lok Adalat. It was noted that the

file was put up before the Vice Chairman who had made a query on 17th

February, 1992 as to why the assessment of damages upto June, 1957

was made only in 1990 and had directed his officials to place the file

within 14 days, However, the file was not put up before the Vice

Chairman. It has also been noted that a site inspection was done on 6th

February, 1965 revealing that Sh.Ajaib Singh father of the petitioner

was running a motor workshop in the name of Ajbindra Motor Works.

The Lok Adalat had also noted an identity card dated 9th November,

1955 issued by Delhi Improvement Trust of Sh.Ajaib Singh and a letter

from Sh.Baldev Swaroop Member of Parliament dated 15th June, 1954

certifying that his car was repaired at the workshop of the father of the

petitioner were produced by the father of the petitioner. It has also been

noted that the damages upto date were paid and the father of the

petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of Government nazul land

from 1st January, 1952 upto 17th June, 1967 when the demolition was

carried out for the purpose of widening of the road. In the

circumstances, the presiding officer of the Lok Adalat had

recommended the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative site

and the respondent was directed to produce the files of other evictees

who were allotted alternative plots and the matter was adjourned to 9th

December, 2003 by the Lok Adalat. However, later on the petitioner did

not appear despite notice given to him before the Lok Adalat and

therefore, his petition was dismissed and the liberty was given to him to

file the appropriate petition.

15. The respondent though have demanded various documents from

the petitioner, however, copy of the policy under which the alternative

plots are to be allotted has not been produced. The respondent has also

failed to show as to how the case of the petitioner is different from the

other evictees who were allotted alternative plots by the DDA except

alleging that the other evictees had filed the documents required under

the policy. Though the observation of permanent Lok Adalat have not

been challenged by the respondent, however, the same could not be

done as the petition before the permanent Lok Adalat had been

dismissed and, therefore, it will not be appropriate to grant any relief to

the petitioner on the basis of the observations made by the permanent

Lok Adalat. The petition filed by the petitioner also lacks in some

material details and particulars. Petitioner has not disclosed as to when

his father died and the rights of his father, if any for allotment of

alternative plot, devolved exclusively upon him or on other legal heirs.

The petitioner has not disclosed as to how many legal heirs deceased

Ajaib Singh had at the time of his demise, and the rights, if any for

allotment of alternative plot has devolved upon him exclusively instead

of on all the legal heirs of Late Sh.Ajaib Singh. It appears from the

petition that the petitioner is basing his claim merely on the

observations made by Lok Adalat. However, since his petition was

dismissed, the petitioner will not be entitled to rely on the same to claim

alternative plot.

16. The petitioner has not challenged the policy of the respondent

contemplating fulfilling various terms and conditions. The petitioner

has also failed to fulfill various terms and conditions as the documents

demanded by the respondent has not been produced. In the

circumstances, the petitioner will not be entitled for allotment of an

alternative plot of land according to the policy of the respondent. If the

respondent has failed to produce the policy, it was incumbent upon the

petitioner to justify his contention that according to the relevant policy

the documents demanded by the respondent were not required. The

petitioner has also not produced the relevant policy. The burden to

establish his right was on the petitioner and in case both the parties

have failed to substantiate their case, it is the petitioner, who will not be

entitled for relief in the facts and circumstances. The petitioner also did

not claim that the respondent should produced the relevant policy

and/or documents and on the failure of the respondent to produce the

said documents, adverse inference be taken against him. In the

circumstances, since the burden is on the petitioner, he will fail on

account of non production of relevant policy as the petitioner has failed

to establish that the documents demanded by the petitioner were not

required under the policy of the respondent.

17. In the totality of facts and circumstances it will not be

appropriate to direct respondent to allot an alternative plot to the

petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, parties

are left to bear their own cost.

September 03, 2009                                        ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'