Ram Dev Shukla vs Dda
2012 Latest Caselaw 1233 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) 7635/2010 and CM 19842/2010

                                                       Decided on: 23.02.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
RAM DEV SHUKLA                                              ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Jivesh Tiwari, Advocate

                    versus

DDA                                                        ..... Respondent
                         Through: Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Advocate

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

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

for restoration of the allotment of stall/unit No.81 located at Chhoti Sabzi

Mandi, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, by setting aside the cancellation letter dated

10.10.2005.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is a hawker,

who used to hawk in Nehru Place since the year 1980. On 07.04.1998, the

petitioner was given an alternative hawking site at Tilak Marg, in lieu of his

hawking site at Nehru Place on the basis of a draw of lots. On 30.11.1998,

the respondent/DDA demanded a sum of `1,71,405/- from the petitioner for

handing over possession of the aforesaid site. It is averred by the petitioner

that in June 2004, an initial amount of `43,000/- was deposited by him. On

06.05.2004, the respondent/DDA called upon the petitioner to pay an

additional sum of `7,754/- as the balance amount of 25% of the initial

amount paid by him. The petitioner paid the said amount in May 2004. On

16.06.2004, possession of the stall in question was handed over to the

petitioner. However, the petitioner admittedly failed to deposit the remaining

installments with the respondent/DDA in terms of the allotment. As a

result, vide impugned letter dated 10.10.2005, his allotment was cancelled

and he was called upon to hand over vacant physical possession of the stall

(Annexure-K). In the aforesaid letter, the respondent/DDA had also

informed the petitioner that two post dated cheques handed over by him,

which were due on 01.11.2004 and 01.05.2005 did not get encashed.

Counsel for the petitioner concedes that the aforesaid cheques were indeed

returned by his banker on account of insufficient funds maintained in the

account of the petitioner.

3. Thereafter, for the next five years, the petitioner did not take

any steps to approach the respondent/DDA for restoration of the allotment

of the stall in question. The only correspondence placed on record is a

representation dated 03.05.2010 addressed by the petitioner to the Lt.

Governor, Delhi, praying inter alia for restoration of the allotment of the stall

in his favour. Counsel for the petitioner states that the said representation

was made by the petitioner by relying upon an order passed in a writ

petition filed by another vendor, who was relocated from Nehru Place to

Chhoti Sabzi Mandi, Tilak Marg, New Delhi, and had approached the Court

for condonation of delay beyond a period of 360 days in making the payment

in terms of the allotment, registered as W.P.(C) 7355/2007 entitled Nek

Ram Gupta vs. DDA. A copy of the order dated 01.12.2008 passed in the

aforesaid writ petition is placed on record as Annexure-M. In the aforesaid

order, the Court had noted that the prayer made by the petitioner therein

was for directions to the respondent to accept the balance amount of the

demand notice and further that the petitioner therein had already deposited

a sum of `50,000/- approximately towards part payment and had made a

representation to the Commissioner (Lands) for condonation of delay in

making the payment. Unlike the aforesaid case wherein no cancellation order

had been passed, in the present case, due to repeated defaults on the part

of the petitioner, a cancellation order came to be passed by the

respondent/DDA on 10.10.2005.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that counsel for the

petitioner states that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the balance

outstanding amount payable by him in terms of the demand-cum-allotment

letter issued by the respondent/DDA and then complete all requisite

formalities, upon being so intimated by the respondent/DDA, the petitioner

is granted one last opportunity to submit a representation to the

Commissioner (Land) DDA for restoration of the allotment of the subject stall

in his favour. In case the Commissioner (Lands), DDA is empowered to

restore the said allotment in terms of the prevalent policy of the DDA, the

said representation to be made by the petitioner shall be considered and

disposed of by passing a speaking order. However, in case the Commissioner

(Lands), DDA is not empowered to restore the said allotment, the said

representation to be made by the petitioner shall be forwarded to the

Chairman/Vice Chairman, DDA for consideration and disposal in accordance

with the prevalent policy of the DDA. Thereafter, the decision taken shall be

communicated in writing to the petitioner by either of the authorities, within

a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation.

5. The present petition is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid

order, alongwith the pending application, while leaving the parties to bear

their own costs.

                                                       (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 23, 2012                                         JUDGE
rkb