Delhi High Court
Devi Ram & Ors. vs Dda & Ors. on 5 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: February 24, 2010
Date of Order: March 05 , 2010
(1) + Cont. Cas(C) 479/1999
% 05.03.2010
Bunkar Allottee Union ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate
Versus
DDA & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
(2)+ Cont. Cas(C) 490/1999
%
Devi Ram & Ors. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate
Versus
DDA & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
(3)
+ Cont. Cas(C) 488/1999
%
Kishori Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajendra Dutt, Advocate
Versus
DDA & Ors. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
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. By these three petitions, the petitioners have alleged violation of the
order dated 30th July, 1993 passed by this Court whereby a mandamus was
issued to the DDA in following terms:
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 1 Of 8
"We will, therefore, allow the writ petition and will quash
the draw of lots held on 25th November, 1991 for
allotment of plots in Wazirpur Phase IV confined to 482
persons. A mandamus is issued to the first respondent to
make allotment in the first instance to 650 persons who
had been issued allotment-cum-demand letters and who
had made payment in terms thereof. However, liberty is
granted to the first respondent to recheck that list after
due notice to all those persons falling in that list of 650
persons on the basis of scheme that it was for
resettlement of all the weavers living in jhuggi-jhopris in
Sawan Park earlier to 1985 and that those weavers had
not been allotted any plot by the D.D.A, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, or any other local authority in the
Union Territory of Delhi. This list shall be finalized within a
period of three months from today and allotment made
within six months from today. Petitioners will be entitled
to costs. Counsel fee Rs.5,000/-. Rule is made absolute."
2. It is submitted by the petitioners that they were among the list of 650
persons as mentioned in the order and the respondent DDA had not allotted
the plots to them despite the fact that they were not allotted any other plot
by DDA or MCD or any other local bodies in Union Territory of India.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent DDA that the above
mandamus given by this Court included right of the respondent to scrutinize
the list of 650 persons and allot the plots to bonafide persons only who were
having jhuggies in Sawan Park. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the
revised order passed by this Court on 24th October 1997 wherein this Court
had observed that the list included people who were not bonafide residents of
Sawan Park Weavers Colony and the list does not take into account the
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 2 Of 8
bonafide claim of genuine residents of the cluster who were residing before
1985.
4. It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the case of three
petitioners was scrutinized and it was found that these petitioners were not
having any separate jhuggi in Sawan Park and an alternate plot in place of
jhuggi where they were living had already been allotted to one of the family
members. The scrutiny position was reflected in the status report filed by
respondent DDA which is as under:
Status Report Petitioners in CCP No.479/1999
Titled as
Bunker Allottee Union v/s DDA
S.N Name of Plot No., File Sur S.NO Remarks
petitioner if allotted vey . in
o. No.
List the
S.N allot
o. ment
list
1. Sh. Udai Not F.23(9 - 58/29 The offer of allotment
Vir s/o Sh. Allotted 9 made to the petitioner
38)/87
Kanchi Lal is rejected because
/LSB(1 proof of his resident
(i.e. photocopy of the
)
ration card) submitted
by the petitioner is the
same as submitted by h
is father Shri Kanchi Lal.
Against the said ration
card/ jhugg one
alternative plot No.A-
170 was allotted to his
father.
2. Sh. Not F.23(8 - 38/29 The offer of allotment
Jaswant allotted 9 made to the petitioner
78)87/
s/o Shri is rejected because
Veni Ram LSB(1) proof of his resident
(i.e. photocopy of the
ration card) submitted
by the petitioner is the
same as submitted by
his mother Smt. Chameli
Devi w/o Sh. Veni Ram.
Against the said ration
card/jhuggi one
alternative plot No.B-
757, was allotted to his
father.
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 3 Of 8
Status Report Petitioners in CCP No.488/1999
Titled as
Shri Kishori Lal v/s DDA CCP No.488/1999
S.N Name of Plot File No. Survey S.NO. Remarks
petitioner No. List in the
o.
S.No. allot
ment
list
1. Shri Kishori B-517 F.23(273)/ 226/650 - Allotted Plot No.B-517
Lal s/o Sh.
87/LSB(1)
Lal Sahai
2. Sh. Babu B-655 F.23(338) 283/650 - Allotted plot no.B-655
Ram s/o
87/LSB(1)
Sh.
Khushali
Ram
3. Sh. Mihi Lal A-219 F.23(654)/ - 43/29 Allotted plot No.A-219
87/LSB(I)
Gopi Nath
4. Sh. Not F.23(940)/ - 60/29 The offer of
Murari Lal allowe 9 allotment made to
87/LSB(I)
s/o Sh. d the petitioner is
Pyare Lal rejected because
proof of his resident
(i.e. photocopy of
the ration card)
submitted by the
petitioner is the
same as submitted
by his father Shri
Pyare Lal. Against
the said ration card/
jhuggi one
alternative plot
no.B-702 was
allotted to his
father.
5. Sh. Dev Lal B-569 F.23(839)/ - 181/2 Allotted Plot No.B-569
87/LSB(I)
Ram
6. Sh. Jai A-22 F.23(294)/ 246/650 - Allotted plot No.A-22
Singh s/o
87/LSB(I)
Tulsi Ram
7. Smt. A-66 F.23(276)/ 229/650 - Allotted Plot No.A-66
Namwati
87/LSB(I)
w/o Sh.
Newa Ram
8. Sh. Sanker B-561 F.23(422)/ 347/650 - Allotted Plot No.B-561
Lal s/o Sh.
87/LSB(I)
Khema
9. Sh. Bhoop B-647 F.23(505)/ 407/650 - Allotted Plot No.B-647
Singh s/o
87/LSB(I)
Kanchi
Singh
10. Smt. B-523 F.23(417)/ 342/650 - Allotted Plot No.B-523
Shakuntila
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 4 Of 8
w/o Ram 87/LSB(I)
Prasad
11. Sh. A-70 F.23(13)/8 13/650 - Allotted Plot No.A-70
Narayana
7/LSB(I)
Lal
s/o Shri
Kanhya Lal
12. Sh. Kashi A-116 F.23(309)/ 259/650 - Allotted Plot No.A-116
Ram s/o
87/LSB(I)
Sh.
Laxman
Prasad
13. Smt. Rani A-424 F.23(10)/8 10/650 - Allotted Plot No.A-424
w/o Tulsi
7/LSB(I)
Prasad
14. Sh. Kamar B-717 F.23(689)/ - 210/2 Allotted Plot No.B-717
87/LSB(I)
Lala Ram
Status Report Petitioners in CCP No.490/1999
Titled as
Shri Devi v/s DDA CCP No.490/1999
S.N Name of Plot File No. Survey S.NO. Remarks
petitioner No. List in the
o.
S.No. allotm
ent
list
1. Sh. Devi B-540 F.23(278)/ 231/650 Plot No.B-540,
Ram s/o
87/LSB(I) allotted to the
Sh. Nanu
Ram petitioner.
2. Sh. Vinod A-6 F.23(111)/ 95/650 Plot No.A-6, allotted
Kumar s/o
87/LSB(I) to the petitioner.
Sh. Shobha
Ram
3. Sh. Not F.23(691/ The 8/299 The offer of
Chirajni allotte case of allotment made to
87/LSB(I)
Lal s/o Sh. d the the petitioner is
Hukam petition rejected because
Singh er was proof of his
examin resident (i.e.
ed in photocopy of the
the ration card)
individu submitted by the
al file. petitioner is the
same as submitted
by his father Shri
Hukam Singh.
Against the said
ration card/jhuggi
one alternative plot
No.B-715, was
allotted to his
father.
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 5 Of 8
4. Sh. Siya A-383 F.23(921)/ The 144/29 Plot No.A-383, allotted
Ram s/o case of 9
87/LSB(I) to the petitioner.
Sh. Bihari the
Lal petition
er was
examin
ed in
the
individu
al file.
5. Sh. Dori Lal B-515 F.23(762)/ The 170/29 Plot No.B-515,
s/o Sh. case of 9
87/LSB(I) allotted to the
Khayali the
Ram petition petitioner.
er was
examin
ed in
the
individu
al file.
6. Sh. A-355 F.23(777)/ The 118/29 Plot No.A-355, allotted
Parsandi case of 9
87/LSB(I) to the petitioner.
Lal s/o Sh. the
Kalyan petition
Singh er was
examin
ed in
the
individu
al file.
5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-holding of a separate
ration card was no ground to reject the claim of the petitioners. He referred to
judgments in the Writ Petition No.17559 of 2005 Dal Chand v DDA decided on
2nd February 2006 and Writ Petition No.747 of 2003 Puran Lal v DDA decided
on 4th October 2004 wherein this Court had held that the ration card was not
a conclusive proof of the factum of any residence and the petitioner had
sufficiently proved that voters list for the year 1979, 1989 and 1983 he was
residing in a jhuggi separate from his father and thus was entitled for a
separate plot.
6. The respondent's counsel on the other hand, relied on judgment
passed in CW 810 of 2002 on 24th July, 2002 also a judgment in respect of re-
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 6 Of 8
settlement of the persons under the same scheme of Sawan Park wherein this
Court observed that vide its order dated 30th July, 1993, Court had given
further liberty to DDA to recheck the list after due notice and this verification
was carried out. The Court observed that the petitioner (in that case) was a
member of the family of Chander Pal, his father and it was Chander Pal who
was entitled to the alternate plot and it was not the case that each and every
member of the family had to be issued separate allotment. Since Chander Pal
had already been allotted plot, the petitioner would not be entitled for
another plot. This Court relied upon the ration card of the petitioner in order
to see that he formed part of the family of Chander Pal and the writ petition of
the petitioner was dismissed. Similarly in the case of Beerpal vs. DDA CW
No.6576 of 2000, similar claim of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court
on the ground that the petitioner formed a part of the family of his father.
This Court relied upon the scrutiny carried out by DDA in Dal Chand's
case(supra) also. It is also submitted by counsel for respondent that present
case was not similar to Dal Chand's case (supra). The petitioner in Dal
Chand's case (supra) had already constructed over the allotted plot after
possession was given to him and this Court observed that since the petitioner
had invested money for construction of the house and unless fraud was not
established, the case should not be reopened. Similar is the situation in Puran
Lal's (supra) case.
7. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was given liberty to
scrutinize the list of 650 persons and issue allotment letters only to those who
were genuinely entitled to an alternative plot. There was no mandate given
by this Court that each member of the family living in a jhuggi was entitled
for a separate alternative plot. Scrutiny in respect of the persons who were
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 7 Of 8
entitled to have alternative plot was to be carried out by DDA and this
scrutiny was allowed even in respect of 650 persons against whom the order
was passed.
8. I consider that since the respondent, in scrutiny has found that the
plots had already been allotted to the other family members of the petitioners
and petitioners were not entitled to another separate and alternative plot, no
contempt was made out. All the above petitions are hereby dismissed with no
orders as to costs.
March 05, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
rd
Cont. Cas (C) 479,490 & 488 of 1999 Page 8 Of 8
