Delhi Development Authority vs R.N. Chopra
2011 Latest Caselaw 2703 Del

$~19.
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 3361/2011

                                           Date of order: 19th May, 2011

        DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY        ..... Petitioner
                     Through Mr. Dhanesh Relan, Advocate.

                         versus

        R.N. CHOPRA                                 ..... Respondent
                              Through Mr. Kiran Babu & Mr. Daleep
                              Singh, Advocates.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

SANJIV KHANNA, J.:

        Delhi Development Authority has filed the present writ

petition to challenge the order dated 6th January, 2011 allowing

O.A. No. 2649/2010 filed by R.N. Chopra, the respondent

herein.

2.      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. as there was sufficient

material to show that the respondent, who was working as UDC,

had failed to bring out on record that unearned increase was to

be charged when case was put up for mutation of plot No. 672,
W.P. (C) No. 3361/2011                                          Page 1 of 4
 Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi.

3.      The said mutation was undertaken and processed in 1996

and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2008, after a

gap of twelve years. However, the tribunal did not set aside the

punishment/penalty, of reduction of one stage in the time scale

of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed

by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15th April, 2010 and

upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 3rd August,

2010, for this reason alone.

4.      The aforesaid plot and quarter No. E-7/27, Hudson Line,

Delhi was originally allotted to one Siri Chand @ Siri kishan Lal.

The allotment was made by MCD/L&DO.               There was no

stipulation of payment of unearned increase in the case of the

quarter and in fact the said quarter had to be surrendered on

allotment of the plot. It appears that the allotment of quarter was

not surrendered despite of allotment of plot and no further action

was taken.

5.      It has also come on record and accepted in the enquiry

report that the plot was mutated in favour of one Rawail Singh

and the L&DO permitted the transfer without charging 50%

unearned increase vide letter dated 5th January, 1981. At that

W.P. (C) No. 3361/2011                                Page 2 of 4
 time, the plot was not under the administrative control of the

petitioner authority and the respondent was not responsible for

accepting the said transfer and not charging unearned increase.

Subsequently, when the files were transferred to the petitioner

authority, the plot was already recorded and mutated in the

name of Rawail Singh. The said permission had already been

granted by the L&DO.

6.      In 1996, Mohinder Singh son of Rawail Singh made an

application for mutation of the plot in his favour as Rawail Singh

had expired. The respondent had processed the file for transfer

of mutation in favour of Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh being

son of late Rawail Singh, 50% unearned increase was not

payable as mutation was in favour of a legal heir, who was a

blood relation.          We do not understand on what score and

account the respondent can be blamed for carrying out the said

mutation.        At that stage in 1996, the respondent was not

concerned whether or not the earlier mutation in favour of

Rawail Singh was correct or incorrect and whether L&DO while

carrying out the said mutation in 1979/1981 should have claimed

and demanded unearned increase. It is further noticed that the

plot was subsequently converted from leasehold into freehold

W.P. (C) No. 3361/2011                                Page 3 of 4
 and the allottee paid 33% additional conversion charges, which

are payable when the intending owner is not the recorded

allottee. Thus, no loss was also caused to the petitioner.

7.      In view of the above, we concur with the findings recorded

by the tribunal. The tribunal has noticed mutual contradictions in

the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. On one hand,

it is admitted that the transfer/mutation in favour of the Rawail

Singh was made by L&DO and at the same time, responsibility

was fastened and the respondent was made liable.                      The

authorities did not deal with and examine the contentions and

submissions of the respondent.         Thus, the decision making

process got vitiated.

8.      The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but there will be

no order as to costs.



                                           SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE MAY 19, 2011 VKR