Ashwani Kumar Bhasker vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 5987 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                            Decided on : 08.12.2011
+                       W.P.(C) No.10917/2004

IN THE MATTER OF
ASHWANI KUMAR BHASKER                          ..... Petitioner
                  Through : Mr. Akhilesh K. Jha, Adv.

                  versus

GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS                   ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for R-1 & 2/
                     Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
                     Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for R-3/DDA.

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI



HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

directions to respondent No.2/SDM, Punjabi Bagh, Government of NCT of

Delhi, to certify that the petitioner is one of the Punjab Migrants residing

at the Peera Garhi Relief Camp. The second relief sought by the

petitioner is for directions to respondent No.3/DDA to allot a flat to him

under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (in short

'the Scheme'). Thirdly, it is prayed that till the petitioner is allotted a

flat under the said Scheme, status quo of the refugee camp be

maintained by the respondents. Lastly, the petitioner has sought

investigation into the illegal and irregular allotment of flats under the

aforesaid Scheme.

2. Counsels for the respondents state that all the reliefs, as sought by

the petitioner in the present petition, have already been granted to him

inasmuch as he has been issued a certificate to the effect that he is a

Punjab Migrant residing at Peera Garhi Relief Camp and a flat has been

allotted to him at Bindapur, Delhi under the Scheme, whereafter he has

shifted to the said flat and lastly, the issue of investigation into the

allotment of flats under the Scheme has been considered extensively by a

Coordinate Bench in WP(C)No.13741/2004 entitled "Punjab Migrants

Welfare Association vs. Delhi State Govt. of NCT of Delhi", which was

finally decided on 10.5.2007.

3. While conceding the fact that the petitioner has been issued a

certificate stating that he is a Punjab Migrant and he has been

rehabilitated upon respondent No.3/DDA allotting him a flat at Bindapur,

counsel for the petitioner states that the remaining issue for consideration

in the present petition is that the petitioner has been wrongly allotted a

flat at Bindapur under the Housing Scheme floated by respondent

No.3/DDA for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants, whereas he ought to have

been considered for allotment of a flat only at Dwarka, Narela or Rohini,

for the reason that he had applied under the Scheme only for the

aforesaid three areas. He further states that allotments at Dwarka,

Narela and Rohini were fraudulently made to persons, who were not even

Punjab Migrants and thus, the petitioner had been deprived of his right of

allotment of a flat in the aforesaid areas, even though he was entitled for

the same having satisfied both the conditions of eligibility of being a

Punjab migrant and of living in a designated refugee camp.

4. The attention of this Court is drawn to the orders passed in the

present proceedings from time to time directing respondent No.3/DDA as

also respondents No.1 & 2/Government of NCT of Delhi to file appropriate

affidavits stating inter alia the action taken by them with regard to the

persons who have been pointed out as having been included fraudulently

in the list of allotment of flats to Punjab Migrants.

5. Counsel for the respondents state that such affidavits have been

filed by them from time to time during the pendency of these

proceedings. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent No.3/DDA

that an affidavit was filed by DDA on 19.4.2008, wherein it was stated

that changes in allotment from Narela to other localities like Dwarka and

Rohini, had been allowed by the DDA for the reason that at the relevant

time, sufficient flats had been available at the said localities to effect such

changes. However, such changes to Rohini and Dwarka were allowed

only till June, 2003. Subsequently, since sufficient flats were not

available in Dwarka and Rohini, the area of Bindapur was included in the

draw of lots, held from June, 2003 onwards to adjust the other Punjab

Migrants. It is further stated that the petitioner's case was verified on

2.8.2004 and on the said date, Bindapur had already been included as

one of the areas where allotment was to be made to Punjab Migrants,

hence his case was recommended for allotment in the Bindapur area.

She further relies on the Scheme to state that subsequently, a fresh

brochure was printed by the DDA, wherein it was mentioned that 3,276

built-up flats were being offered for allotment in Bindapur and Narela. In

such circumstances, the petitioner having been allotted a flat at Bindapur

of which he has taken possession, he cannot now insist for allotment of

flat in Dwarka or Rohini.

6. It is pertinent to note that even as per Clause 16(ii) of the brochure

issued by the respondent/DDA, it reserves the right to increase or

decrease the number of flats on offer in the scheme. At the same time,

DDA also reserves the right to withdraw some/all flats depending on the

circumstances. Furthermore, merely because the petitioner gave his

choices for allotment of a flat at Dwarka, Rohini and Narela, does not

mean that he had acquired any vested right to seek allotment in the said

areas alone, allotment being dependent on the availability of flats in the

area in question. The explanation offered by respondent No.3/DDA in its

affidavit that the petitioner had become eligible for a flat only on

02.08.2004, on which date flats in Rohini and Dwarka had already been

exhausted, and by then the area of Bindapur had been included for the

purposes of allotment is found to be plausible and reasonable. Hence it

cannot be urged that the petitioner was discriminated against by the

respondent/DDA by offering him a flat at Bindapur. Having found the

explanation offered by the respondent/DDA for allotting the petitioner a

flat at Bindapur as tenable and justified, this Court is of the opinion that

the respondent/DDA has not committed any illegality, arbitrariness or

irrationality in making such an allotment to the petitioner.

7. Furthermore, as noted above, the entire issue with regard to

rehabilitation of the Punjab Migrants under the Scheme floated by the

DDA, was subject matter of consideration before a Coordinate Bench in

WP(C)No.13741/2004, wherein orders passed by the Supreme Court and

the NHRC were also taken into consideration and all aspects of the matter

were considered minutely, whereafter a detailed judgment was passed

holding inter alia that the exercise undertaken by the SDM to verify the

claims of the residents of the Peera Garhi Camp could not be termed as

arbitrary or unreasonable. Pertinently, in the aforesaid judgment, the

Court had relied upon an interim order dated 27.7.2006, wherein it was

recorded that the SDM would commence his sitting for the purpose of

verification of allotment of flats from 21.8.2006 till 5.9.2006, so as to

facilitate the parties to participate in the verification. It was only after the

learned Single Judge had examined the report submitted by the SDM in

the inquiry and was satisfied that the SDM had exercised due diligence in

identifying such of the parties who had provided adequate documents in

support of their claim of being eligible for being recommended for

reallocation under the Scheme, was the matter disposed of by holding

that the verification exercise undertaken by the SDM was neither

arbitrary, nor unreasonable.

8. In view of the aforesaid detailed judgment, this Court does not

propose to undertake yet another exercise in the context of prayer (4)

made by the petitioner in the present petition seeking investigation into

the alleged illegal and irregular allotment of flats under the Scheme. The

prayers in the writ petition have been satisfied and the petition is

accordingly disposed of. However, taking into consideration the order

dated 6.8.2008, whereunder it was noted that as per the petitioner, he

could have been allotted a flat under the Scheme at Dwarka, Narela or

Rohini, if fraudulent allotment had not been made to persons ineligible

under the Scheme, because of which an interim measure, it was directed

that the petitioner would shift to the flat allotted to him at Bindapur, while

leaving the option open that if the petitioner was found entitled to any

other flat at Dwarka, Narela or Rohini, he could seek possession of the

same after surrendering possession of the flat at Bindapur, this Court

deems it appropriate to grant leave to the petitioner to initiate

appropriate proceedings if so advised, wherein he would be at liberty to

point out specific instances of any such discrimination by respondent

No.3/DDA after 2.8.2004, the date on which he was found eligible for

being allotted a flat under the Scheme. In such an eventuality, the

petitioner shall not encumber or alienate the flat allotted to him at

Bindapur which is presently in his possession, as ordered on 6.8.2008, till

the conclusion of such proceedings. However, if the petitioner does not

propose to initiate any such proceedings, he shall indicate the same to

respondent No.3/DDA by sending a written communication to it within two

weeks, so that he is released from the restriction imposed on him to not

encumber or alienate the flat in question.

The petition is disposed of.

                                                      (HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 08, 2011                                         JUDGE
sk