Raghubir Singh vs Chairman, Dda & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1229 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   W.P.(C) 13408/2009

                                Date of Decision:23rd February, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
RAGHUBIR SINGH                                         ..... Petitioner
                        Through:     Mr. Y.P. Ahuja, Adv.

                  versus

CHAIRMAN, DDA & ANR.                                ..... Respondents

                   Through:          Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey,
                                     Adv. with Mr.Ashutosh Kaushik,
                                     Adv.

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 the respondents/DDA to hand over the physical

possession of an alternate plot allotted to him bearing Plot No.66,

Pocket No.1, Block-A, Sector-22, Rohini measuring 209 sq. mtrs.

under Rohini Residential Scheme.

2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents decided

to allot alternative plots to such of the expropriated land owners,

whose land was acquired under the respondent/DDA's Scheme of

Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi.

3. Vide letter dated 18.03.2008, the respondents/DDA had

informed the petitioner that he had been allotted the subject

alternative plot on perpetual lease hold basis and that he was

required to submit an application for allotment of the same along

with acceptance of terms and conditions of allotment and also to

complete the requisite formalities including payment of the

premium of the land in the manner set out in the said letter.

4. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that between

03.04.2008 to 01.05.2008, the petitioner had deposited an amount

of `13,27,381/- as demanded by the respondents/DDA. On

21.07.2008, the petitioner submitted an application to the

respondents/DDA praying inter alia that he be handed over the

possession of the subject plot. On 22.08.2008, the respondent/DDA

informed the petitioner that his file was not traceable and as soon

as the same would be traced, he would be given information in this

regard. Thereafter, the petitioner did not hear from the

respondent/DDA for a long time. Finally, on 20.01.2009 the

petitioner sent a legal notice to the respondents/DDA calling upon it

to hand over possession of the aforesaid alternative plot to him. As

no reply was received from the respondents/DDA to the said notice,

on 9.7.2009, the petitioner filed the present petition.

5. Notice was issued on the present petition vide order dated

25.11.2009. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents/DDA

wherein it is stated that the petitioner was allotted the subject plot

through a draw held on 08.02.2008 and a demand-cum-allotment

letter was issued to him on 18.03.2008. Thereafter,

respondents/DDA received a complaint dated 27.05.2008 from one

Sh. Jai Prakash, S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, who claimed that he has

purchased the recommendation letter from the petitioner by

paying him a sum of `10,00,000/-. Further, the complainant

requested DDA to stop the process of possession and execution of

lease deed in favour of the petitioner. It is averred in the counter

affidavit that as per the DDA rules and regulations, alternative plots

were to be allotted to rehabilitate the allottees and their legal heirs

and they were not allowed to sell the plot/recommendation letter or

the allotment of the alternative plot. As a result, the

respondents/DDA issued a letter dated 12.09.2008 to the

complainant, Sh. Jai Prakash as well as the petitioner herein, to get

their dispute settled from the competent court of law so that the

case could be proceeded further for handing over the possession of

the subject alternative plot on the terms and conditions of

allotment. Counsel for the respondents/DDA contends that instead

of settling the dispute, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated

02.09.2008 to the DDA, which was examined and replied to by the

respondents/DDA on 06.10.2008 again calling upon the petitioner to

settle the dispute with the complainant Jai Prakash through a

competent court of law.

6. In the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the

respondents/DDA, the petitioner has denied having ever entered

into an agreement with the complainant, Jai Prakash, or any other

person. It is further averred that the aforesaid complainant had

moved an application for impleadment in the present proceedings,

registered as C.M.No.3683/2010 which was finally withdrawn by the

applicant as recorded in the order dated 24.05.2010. Thus, counsel

for the petitioner states that the petitioner having deposited the

amount as demanded by the respondents/DDA, it is under an

obligation to hand over the vacant, physical possession of the

subject plot allotted to him forthwith.

7. The Court has heard counsel for the parties and perused the

documents on record. The allotment of the subject plot in favour of

the petitioner is not disputed by the respondents/DDA nor is it

disputed that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of

`13,27,281/- with the DDA as long back as in the month of April-

May, 2008. Furthermore, it is not denied by the respondents/DDA

that till date, it has not been served with an order passed by any

court in proceedings initiated by the complainant wherein, DDA has

been restrained from handing over possession of the subject plot to

the petitioner. In the course of arguments, counsel for the

petitioner has reiterated the fact that the petitioner is not aware of

any civil suit having been filed against him and he asserts that there

is no litigation pending between the petitioner and the complainant

or for that matter, with any third party, pertaining to the subject

plot.

8. In this view of the matter, it is deemed appropriate to dispose

of the present petition with directions to respondents/DDA to deliver

vacant, physical possession of the alternate plot to the petitioner

within a period of four weeks from today upon completion of

requisite formalities as may be communicated by the

respondents/DDA to the petitioner. However, this shall not preclude

the respondents/DDA from calling upon the petitioner to furnish an

affidavit confirming the fact that he has not been served with any

order from any Court/forum, restraining him from taking possession

of the subject plot from DDA and further undertaking to indemnify

DDA for any claim that may be lodged against it with respect to the

subject plot, as may be considered necessary.

9. The petition is disposed of.

Parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                                    (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 23, 2012                                      JUDGE
'anb'