Delhi High Court
Sundri Devi vs Dda on 23 January, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8394/2009
Decided on: 23.01.2012
IN THE MATTER OF
SUNDRI DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rama Shankar, Adv.
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, 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 respondent/DDA to withdraw the cancellation of
allotment of a kiosk/stall No.254, situated at Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Tilak
Nagar, New Delhi vide communication dated 21.05.2007 and restore the
said allotment in her favour.
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had
been earning her livelihood by squatting at Nehru Place. However,
respondent/DDA offered her an alternate allotment of a stall and
accordingly allotted her a stall bearing No.254 at Tilak Nagar, Choti Subzi
Mandi, New Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to
deposit the amounts demanded by the respondent/DDA for the said
allotment, within the stipulated time and on account of the said delay, the
allotment made in her favour was cancelled by the respondent/DDA.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition registered as W.P.(C)
No.5003/2007 for quashing the cancellation order dated 21.05.2007 and
for restoration of the allotment. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed
of while directing the petitioner to file a representation for condonation of
delay on her part in depositing the amount with the respondent/DDA. On
30.01.2009, the petitioner filed a representation before the
respondent/DDA explaining the circumstances in which there was a delay
on her part in depositing the amount for allotment of the stall. The said
representation is stated to be still pending, thus, compelling the petitioner
to file the present petition.
4. Counsel for the petitioner states that vide order dated 22.04.2009,
notice was issued in the present petition and at the same time
respondent/DDA was directed to maintain status quo in respect of the
tehbazari site of the petitioner at Nehru Place till the next date of hearing
or allot a different site to her. On 22.10.2009, counsel for the petitioner
made a statement that the petitioner had received a letter dated
01.09.2009 issued by the DDA (Commercial Estate Branch) stating inter
alia that the allotment of the subject stall has been approved, subject to
payment of restoration charges and interest on belated payment. It was
observed by the Court that the aforesaid letter took substantial care of
the grievances of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was directed
to visit the office of the DDA (Commercial Estate Branch) on 16.11.2009,
when she was to be furnished a statement of accounts and intimated
about the outstanding dues, if any.
5. It was the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent/DDA
failed to comply with the aforesaid order. Yet again on 23.03.2010, an
order was passed directing the petitioner to approach the Director,
Residential (Lands), DDA on 31.03.2010 for sorting out the accounts. It
is stated that the petitioner did not visit the office of the respondent/DDA
on the said date, whereafter DDA issued a letter dated 01.07.2010 to the
petitioner raising a demand of `45,204/- on her towards interest on
balance initial payment and on belated payment of monthly installments
along with restoration charges.
6. Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the
order dated 01.02.2011 whereby the respondent/DDA was directed to file
an affidavit giving the complete breakup of the calculations which would
show that the payments made by the petitioner had so far been
accounted for. Though the affidavit has not been filed till date, counsel
for the respondent/DDA states that a calculation sheet has been prepared
by the department.
7. Counsel for the respondent/DDA is directed to furnish a copy of the
calculation sheet prepared by DDA to counsel for the petitioner within one
week. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculations made by the
respondent/DDA, she shall approach the respondent/DDA within two
weeks thereafter with a representation specifically pointing out inter alia
the discrepancies in the calculation sheet. The said representation shall
be considered by the Deputy Director (Commercial Estate), DDA and if
the petitioner seeks a personal hearing from the said officer, a date and
time shall be fixed by the said officer within two weeks from the date of
receipt of the representation, under written intimation to her. After
granting a hearing to the petitioner, a speaking order shall be passed by
the respondent/DDA dealing with the discrepancies as pointed out by the
petitioner. Needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the
date of conclusion of the submissions.
8. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order that may be passed
by the respondent/DDA, she shall be at liberty to seek her civil remedies
in that regard as per law.
9. Till the speaking order as aforesaid is passed, the respondent/DDA
shall maintain status quo with regard to the stall allotted to the petitioner.
10. However, if the petitioner is satisfied with the calculation sheet of
the respondent/DDA, she shall deposit the outstanding amount in respect
of the stall allotted to her, within two weeks and thereafter proceed to
complete necessary formalities for taking over the possession of the said
stall from the respondent/DDA.
11. The petition is disposed of.
HIMA KOHLI, J
JANUARY 23, 2012
'anb'
