Pocket B Mig Flats Welfare ... vs Dda & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4783 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                        Reserved on: August 01, 2012
                        Pronounced on: August 16, 2012

+               W.P.(C) No. 3064/2005

    POCKET B MIG FLATS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
                                             ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Mr. Yashvir
                           Sethi & Mr. Neeraj Gupta,
                           Advocates

                      versus
    DDA & ANR.                                      ..... Respondents
                      Through:     Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Mr. Rahul
                                   Bhandari, Advocate for R-1/DDA
                                   Mr. R.M. Sinha, Advocate for R-
                                   2/Ravi Bharti Shiksha Samiti


    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

                       JUDGEMENT

1. Since July, 1995 the petitioner has been representing to the respondent-DDA for allotment of an alternate site for Community Hall, as the site earmarked by the respondent -DDA for the Community Hall had a high tension line passing over the proposed Community Hall with DESU Sub-Station adjoining it. According to the petitioner, during years from 1996 till the year 2000, the petitioner had been making Representations (Annexure-4 to Annexure-6) and in May, 2000, Lieutenant Governor of Delhi had ordered that the defunct DDA office plot in MIG Flats, Pocket- B, East of Loni Road, Delhi be transferred to MCD Delhi for

construction and use as a Community Hall by the petitioner and to seek its implementation, petitioner had made a detailed Representation (Annexure -7) to the respondent-DDA and despite correspondence (Annexures- 8 to 14) during the years 2001-02 and subsequent Representations (Annexures- 15 to 17) in the year 2003, the petitioner could not secure an allotment of the Community Hall. After handing over of the land by the respondent- DDA to the MCD in November, 2004, the petitioner claims to have learnt that the land of DDA's defunct office earmarked for Community Hall, is going to be allotted to Ravi Bharti Shiksha Samiti and so the petitioner has come up with this petition.

2. Respondent- DDA in its counter affidavit has disclosed that vide communication of 21st October, 1997, land measuring 3118 meters was allotted to MCD for construction of Community Hall and the physical possession of the said land was handed over to the MCD on 1st April, 1998. However, vide letter of 19th April, 2002, MCD had expressed its unwillingness to take the site allotted for construction of Community Hall and hence, the aforesaid allotment was withdrawn vide letter of 22nd October, 2002 and as per the policy formulated by the Union Ministry of Urban Development, communicated to the respondent-DDA vide Communication of 29th September, 2004 (Annexure R-1), 50% of the plots earmarked for Community Halls were to be auctioned publicly and remaining 50% of such plots were to be allotted to the government local bodies and so, in pursuance to the aforesaid policy (Annexure R-1), respondent had allotted the aforesaid land to educational institution- Ravi Bharti Shiksha Samiti i.e. the second respondent

herein.

3. The second respondent defends the allotment of 2600 square meters of land against the sale consideration of `55,77,646/- by the respondent being in pursuance to the Court Order of 6th August, 2002 (Annexure-A) with its counter affidavit while asserting that the land allotted to respondent No.2 was a part of the land, which was meant for allotment to educational institutions. In the rejoinder filed, it is asserted by the petitioner that the respondent- DDA in collusion with respondent No.2 has allotted the land meant for the Community Hall to the second respondent. However, nothing is said about the policy decision of September, 2004 (Annexure R-1) regarding disposal of 50% of site for Community Halls through public auction/ tender basis and remaining 50% to be allotted to Government local bodies.

4. With much vehemence, it was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that when it was provided in the brochure (Annexure-1) that there would be a Community Hall for the MIG Flats, then the direction of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi issued in December, 2000, as noticed in respondent's Communication (Annexure-9), is required to be implemented in its true letter and spirit and the respondent cannot be now permitted to take a stand that subsequent policy decision (Annexure R-1) prohibits it and so, this petition deserves to succeed.

5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents maintain that the allotment of land in question i.e. DDA's defunct office was infact meant for construction of the Community Hall by the MCD, who in turn had expressed its unwillingness to construct

the Community Hall on the land in question and thereafter, in terms of the policy decision of the year 2004 (Annexure- R-1), the allotment of the land in question has been made to the second respondent, which cannot be faulted with and so, this petition ought to be rejected, as the petitioner has no vested right in perpetuity for the allotment of an alternate site for the Community Hall.

6. Here is a typical case of the petitioner keeping the issue of allotment of an alternate site for Community Hall alive from the year 1995 till the year 2002 and when the petitioner could secure its implementation, the petitioner had done nothing except to make Representations. Instead of making successive Representations from September, 2002 till November, 2003 and thereafter waiting for more than a year, the petitioner ought to have availed of legal remedies promptly in the years 2002-03.

7. It is not the case that the petitioner was unaware of MCD declining to take the allotment of land in question, for construction of Community Hall for the petitioner, as in the rejoinder there is a mention of mere denial of MCD not willing to take the allotment of the land for construction of the Community Hall for the petitioner. Rather than availing the legal remedies against the refusal of the MCD to construct the Community Hall on the land in question, petitioner had remained content by making successive Representations to the detriment of the petitioner as due to change in the policy decision (Annexure R-1), the public auction of the Community Halls had to be done after September, 2004. Had the petitioner availed of the legal remedies in time i.e. prior to the

change in the policy in September, 2004, then the petitioner could have secured a Community Hall.

8. Having lost the right, much prior to the filing of this petition, petitioner cannot belatedly seek allotment of land for Community Hall as the land in question stands already allotted to an educational institution i.e. respondent No.2, in pursuance to a Court Order of 6th August, 2002 (Annexure -A). It is not petitioner's case that any land in the vicinity is now available for an alternate allotment as Community Hall for the petitioner.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

August 16, 2012 rs