Delhi High Court
Bharat Prakartik Chikitsa ... vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 27 May, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 498/2011
Date of order: 27th May, 2011
BHARAT PRAKARTIK CHIKITSA MISSION (REGD.). Appellant
Through Mr. Gurmit Singh Hans and Mr.
Vishal Soni, Advocates.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR...... Respondents
Through Mr. Amit Mehra and Mr. Ajay
Verma, Advs. for DDA.
Mr. A.S. Rao, Advocate for
DMRC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CM No. 10651/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
LPA No. 498/2011
The appellant, Bharat Prakritik Chikitsa Mission, by the
present letters patent appeal, has assailed the order dated 19th
January, 2011 dismissing their Writ PetitionNo.551/2009.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
appellant had complied with the terms and conditions of the letter
dated 10th November, 1981 and, therefore, they were the allottees
and a lessee of the plot admeasuring 1.18 acre in A-1 Block,
Janakpuri, Opp. Dholi Piao, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi 110058. It
is submitted that the said plot cannot be acquired or taken over by
the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation ('DMRC', for short), without
taking recourse to Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that
the action of the respondents amounts to trespass and violation of
the Rule of law. He has submitted that the appellants are entitled
to relief in view of the observations of the Civil Judge, Delhi in the
judgment dated 29th May, 2004.
3. It is not disputed that the civil suit filed by the appellant was
dismissed. Leaned single Judge has observed and held that the
civil suit pertained to 0.82 acre of land and not 1.18 acres which is
the subject matter of the present appeal. This is correct. It may be
noted that the said civil suit was filed in the year 1983 and in the
said civil suit appellant had relied upon letter dated 10th
November, 1981, written by Delhi Development Authority (DDA)
to the appellant. The said letter has been enclosed as Annexure A-4
to the present appeal and relevant portion of the said letter reads
as under:-
"With reference to your letter dated 23.9.80
addressed to Prime Minister of India on the
subject cited above, I am directed to inform you
that your allotment can be restored subject to
payment of the following dues:-
1. Premium of Addl. Land (0.04 acres)
@ Rs. 1 lack per acre Rs.4,000/-
2. Interest charges of belated paymentRs.5,130/-
3. Restoration charges @ Rs.1/- per Sq. yds.
(1.14 acre i.e. 5518 sq. yds) Rs.5,518/-
4. Restoration charges additional
Charges @ 10% of the premium Rs. 1,900/-
---------------
Rs.16,548/-
5. The dames for the land occupied by your
society without taking possession from the DDA
will be communicated to you in due course.
The possession of land which is in occupation
of the society beyond the allotted land measuring
1.18 acres be handed over to the D.D.A. by
23.11.81.
The possession of the allotted land will be
handed over only after making payment of
damages."
4. Learned counsel for the appellant appears to be right in his
contention that the appellant had paid Rs.16,548/- as per challans,
which have been enclosed with the writ petition. However, clause
5 of the said letter was not complied with. The said clause
required the appellant to pay damages as the appellant had taken
possession of the land in question without permission and consent
of DDA. The appellant was to pay damages and thereafter DDA
would give possession of the land to the appellant. It is admitted
case of the appellant that damages have not been paid. The second
requirement of the letter dated 10th November, 1981 was that the
appellant should surrender 0.82 acre of land, beyond the allotted
land of 1.18 acres. As noted above, instead of surrendering the
land, the petitioner had filed a civil suit in 1983 claiming right to
0.82 acre of land which had been unauthorisedly occupied by them
in addition to 1.18 acre of land. The said civil suit was dismissed
by judgment dated 29th May, 2004, which has become final.
5. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the appellant himself
did not comply with all the terms and conditions mentioned in the
letter dated 10th November, 1981 and, therefore, learned single
Judge was right in dismissing the writ petition. Accordingly, we do
not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in
limine.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 27, 2011
kkb
