Delhi High Court
Kesho Lal Khullar Memorial ... vs Dda & Ors. on 7 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th December, 2011.
+ LPA 1029/2011
% KESHO LAL KHULLAR MEMORIAL SOCIETY ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Debasis Misra, Advocate.
Versus
DDA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv. for DDA.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The appellant impugns the order dated 21st October, 2009 of the
learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.12516/2005 preferred by the
appellant. The appellant applied for review and which was also declined on
1st October, 2010. This appeal has been preferred after more than two years
of the order dismissing the writ petition and after more than one year of the
order dismissing the review application. The reason stated for the delay is of
the illness of the mother of the appellant. However the appellant as aforesaid
is a Society and not an individual. No particulars or documents of the illness
have been furnished. Even if the mother of the "authorized representative"
of the appellant Society whose affidavit is filed along with the application
for condonation of delay is believed to have been ill, the same is no
explanation for the inaction of the office bearers of the appellant Society.
There is thus no ground for condonation of delay.
2. Be that as it may, to satisfy our judicial conscience, we have also
examined the matter on merits. The writ petition was filed in the year 2005
impugning the cancellation vide letter dated 26th March, 2002 of allotment
(made on 14th June, 2001) of plot ad measuring 825 sq. mtrs. at C-8,
Yamuna Vihar, Delhi to the appellant for establishing a nursery school.
3. The learned Single Judge in the order dated 21st October, 2009 (supra)
has noticed, that the allotment was subject to the appellant depositing
`17,69,860/- with the respondent DDA within 60 days of the issuance of the
allotment-cum-demand letter dated 14th June, 2001; that the appellant
however paid a sum of `2 lac only on 26th December, 2001 i.e. beyond the
period of 60 days; no further payment was made by the appellant;
accordingly the respondent DDA on 26th March, 2002 cancelled the
allotment for the reason of non-payment by the appellant and allotted the
land to someone else; the appellant on 23rd September, 2002 represented to
the respondent DDA against the allotment of the land to some other person
and wrote some other letters in the year 2003-2004; that it was only in the
year 2005 i.e. after three years from the cancellation of the allotment that the
writ petition impugning the same was filed. The appellant before the learned
Single Judge also made a claim for alternative allotment. The learned Single
Judge has held that the appellant was in default and the writ petition was
filed belatedly and no error can be found with the cancellation effected by
the respondent DDA. Vis-a-vis the claim of the appellant for alternative
allotment, it was held that the rules of allotment of Nazul Land i.e. DDA
(Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 stood amended from the year 2006
and whereafter allotment could be only by open auction.
4. The appellant applied for review contending that the learned Single
Judge had in the order dated 21st October, 2009 wrongly recorded that the
undertaking, also required to be submitted by the appellant in terms of the
allotment letter, had not been submitted. It was also contended that the
respondent DDA in the matter of allotment of the land to another had acted
with undue haste. The learned Single Judge has held no ground for review to
have been made out.
5. The counsel for the appellant before us has at the outset contended
that the land after cancellation of allotment in favour of the appellant has
been allotted for the purpose of a Dharamshala. It is contended that the land
having been earlier allotted to the appellant for the purpose of a nursery
school could not have been allotted to another for Dharamshala.
6. We are unable to find any merit in the said contention. The appellant
is interested in the plot for itself. Moreover there is no basis whatsoever for
the said plea. Even otherwise the said plea is in the nature of a public interest
and the appellant has no locus with respect thereto. Such bald pleas cannot
be accepted.
7. Else, we are constrained to observe that there is delay by the appellant
not only in filing this appeal but also in filing the writ petition.
8. The counsel for the appellant has contended before us that the time for
payment was not of the essence. The said argument again is without any
merit. The demand cum allotment letter was in the nature of an offer by the
respondent DDA and which was required to be accepted by compliance of
the terms contained therein. The appellant failed to accept the offer and thus
no rights accrued in favour of the appellant.
9. The counsel for the appellant has further contended that under the
terms of the allotment letter, the appellant though was required to make the
payment within 60 days thereof, had the option to pay the amount demanded
within six months subject to payment of interest thereon @ 18% per annum.
It is contended that allotment to another was made even prior thereto.
However the said plea is also not borne out from the documents. The
demand cum allotment letter addressed to the appellant was of 14 th June,
2001. Six months therfrom would expire on 13th December, 2001. The
cancellation was effected vide letter dated 26 th March, 2002 i.e. after three
months of the expiry of six months.
10. Similarly, we do not find any error in the reasoning given by the
learned Single Judge for declining the claim of the appellant for alternative
plot. In any event, when the appellant itself is in default, it does not have
any equities in its favour.
11. There is no merit in the appeal; the same is dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
DECEMBER 7, 2011
pp..
