Surjeet Singh Uppal vs Rajesh Sommal & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 915 Del

 *                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  Cont. Cas. (C) No.816 of 2004 & C.M. Appl. Nos.15681-15682 of
                                       2004 and 5002 of 2006

%                                                                                    17.02.2010

         SURJEET SINGH UPPAL                                           ......Petitioner
                                            Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, Advocate.

                                                 Versus

         RAJESH SOMMAL & ORS.                                           ......Respondents
                                            Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Advocate.

                                                              Date of Reserve: 8th February, 2010
                                                              Date of Order: February 17, 2010

         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.       Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

                                           JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has invoked provisions of Contempt of Courts Act against the

respondents for non-compliance of the order of this court dated 17th May, 2002.

2. The petitioner has filed C.W. No.1629 of 2002 in respect of allotment of plot in

Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. During pendency of this petition, following order was

passed on 17th May, 2002 :-

"Learned counsel for the respondent on instructions from Mr. A.K. Srivastava, Legal Assistant, MCD states that the matter was considered by the Committee and the petitioner has been found eligible and the allotment shall be made subject to deposit of the amount @4500/- per sq. mtr. It is further stated that the allotment shall be made by 31st December, 2002.

In view of this statement, the grievance of the petitioner stands satisfied. No further orders are called for in this petition. The same stands disposed of."

3. Admittedly, the plot was not allotted to the petitioner @ Rs.4,500/- per square

meter by 31st December, 2002. The petitioner, therefore, approached this court with a

contempt petition seeking punishment of respondent under Contempt of Courts Act.

4. In the response affidavit of Mr. K.C. Sadana, Deputy Director of Sanjay Gandhi

Transport Nagar, MCD, Rohini, it has been stated that the allotment in Sanjay Gandhi

Transport Nagar was done in two phases by MCD. In Phase I, 1420 plots were carved

out and out of total applicants, 1330 applicants were found eligible for allotment of plots

in draw held on 27th December, 1986. Further plots could not be cut and the land could

not be developed as the Supreme Court had granted stay against possession of the land

where about 204 plots were to be carved out. The stay was vacated sometime in the year

1993 and balance 216 applicants were allotted plots out of the first phase. The plots were

being allotted on "no profit no loss basis" and whatever cost was being incurred by DDA

was being recovered from the applicants. The previous applicants were recovered cost @

Rs.3,600/- per square meter. Subsequently, second phase of the development had taken

place and the present petitioner was eligible under the second phase of the development.

5. The committee scrutinized the application for second phase and 253 applicants

were found eligible for category A and 493 applicants were found eligible under category

B in the second phase. Remaining applicants remained absent and did not produce the

requisite documents. The land on which plots of second phase were to be carved was

under encroachment of jhuggi clusters and despite best efforts of the respondent, these

encroachments could not be remove easily and thus, the entire project got delayed and,

therefore, it was decided to re-plan the entire project and an integrated project was

adopted to adjust the spillover of phase I applicants and phase II registrants on available

free land. The proposal for this development was forwarded to school of planning for

approval on 21st February, 2005. The plots were carved out on drawing board but could

not be allotted because of there being no provision for essential services on ground like

electricity connection, water connection by Delhi Jal Board, etc. No allotment till the

date of filing of affidavit (8th February, 2007) had been made to any applicant due to the

reasons that land was under possession of jhuggi jhopri people and development of the

plots had not taken place. The proposal as forwarded by MCD to school of planning was

approved by corporation on 21st February, 2005. Draw of lots was fixed on 26th March,

2007. It was submitted that after all the development had taken place, eligible applicant

would be dispatched allotment letter soon thereafter.

6. It is not disputed that after filing of this affidavit, allotment letter was dispatched

to the applicant in December, 2008. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that the

allotment was not made @ Rs.4,500/- per square meter and the MCD was charging

present day cost to it.

7. Perusal of the documents filed by the MCD shows that in the year 2001 when

second phase was planned, MCD calculated the estimated cost to be incurred on

development of the area and this cost came out to be Rs.4,500/- per square meter if the

land was available to the MCD in the year 2001 itself. The statement was made in the

court on the basis of this proposed cost. It was not stated by MCD that there can be no

increase in the cost with passage of time. Since MCD was charging the same rate from

all allottees, at which the plot has been offered to the present petitioner, the petitioner

cannot make a grievance as he was not being discriminated. There is no reason that MCD

should allot plot to the petitioner @ Rs.4,500 per square meter, which was estimated cost

in the year 2001, and not the actual cost. The MCD had at that time believed that the land

was available and would be developed at this cost. Since the intervening circumstances

show that the land was not made available to MCD and MCD could not develop the land

and could not allot the plot without development and providing infrastructure. I thus,

consider that no contempt was made out in not allotting the plot by 31st December, 2002

nor any contempt was made out because the petitioner was allotted plot at the same price

at which other applicants of phase II are being allotted plots. The court has rather given

directions to MCD that rise in cost should be equally distributed on all the applicants of

phase II and it should not be that some applicants who are allotted plots later should only

be charged more cost and those who were allotted plots earlier should be charges less.

Under this policy, MCD has given letters to all the allottees to deposit the additional cost

of development. The petitioner is at liberty to accept the plot at the rate offered to him or

to forgo the allotment, if he considers that it was not economic for him to take the plot.

There is no vested right in the petitioner to take plot at the estimated cost of the year

2001, when the actual development took place in the year 2006-2007 and allotment took

place in the year 2008. The order dated 17th May, 2002 was not an undertaking given by

the MCD that under all circumstances, the plot will be allotted to the petitioner @

Rs.4,500/- per square meter. In fact, the counsel made statement on the basis of estimated

cost which has been placed on record by MCD and on the understanding that the land

would be available for development.

8. I, therefore, find that no contempt was made out and the petition is hereby

dismissed.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.

FEBRUARY 17, 2010 'AA'