Davinder Pal Singh vs Dda
2012 Latest Caselaw 3300 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P.(C) 1681/2010

                                              Decided on: 17.05.2012

IN THE MATTER OF:
DAVINDER PAL SINGH                                      ..... Petitioner
                         Through:    Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
                                     Mr.Jai Bansal, Adv. along with
                                     petitioner in person.

                   versus

D.D.A.                                               ..... Respondent

                         Through:    Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. with
                                     Mr.Amit Mehra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for quashing of the letter dated 30.09.1987 issued by the

respondent/DDA rejecting his request for allotment of an alternative

plot in lieu of his shop being Shop No.T-721, Zakhira Chowk

situated at the Zakhira Flyover area. The petitioner also seeks

directions to the respondent/DDA to rehabilitate him in lieu of his

shop that was demolished by the respondent, from where the

petitioner claims that he was running an automotive repair shop in

the name of M/s Pal Auto Electric Works in the year 1984.

2. It is averred in the writ petition that on 15.11.1984, the

petitioner's shop was burnt down during the riots that took place in

the area after the assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the

then Prime Minister of India. The petitioner claims to have filed a

complaint dated 15.11.1984 with the local SHO with regard to the

arson and the loss of goods suffered by him, which was duly

received at P.S. Inderlok. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is

also entitled to an alternate shop in lieu of his shop that came to be

demolished by the respondent/DDA for building the Zakhira Flyover

in the area, in terms of the scheme of relocation that had been

implemented by DDA.

3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA on

06.08.2010, DDA has averred that three months prior to the

aforesaid riots, i.e., in August 1984, as the MCD had required the

land at Zakhira for undertaking the work of construction of a

flyover, initially the civic authority had carried out a survey of the

area wherein 300 persons were identified, who were likely to be

affected by the construction of the flyover. However, on receipt of a

representation from a number of associations in the area that the

survey conducted by the MCD did not cover all the affected units, a

fresh survey was conducted by DDA. It is averred that in the

course of the said survey, DDA had identified 639 traders who were

likely to be affected by the construction of the flyover and were

found eligible for allotment of alternative plots in Mangolpuri

Industrial Area. Another survey was conducted by DDA

subsequently wherein instead of the 639 traders who were

identified earlier, only 579 traders were found to be eligible. It is

the stand of the DDA that in view of the variations in the survey list

prepared by the DDA, it was decided that such of the units, which

were found to be common in both the lists/surveys ought to be

shifted from Zakhira and the affected persons would be considered

for allotment of industrial plots in the Mangolpuri Industrial Area.

4. It is further stated by the respondent/DDA in its counter

affidavit that the name of the petitioner did not figure either in the

survey list that was prepared before the demolition was carried out

or in the list of 639 persons who were identified in the survey

conducted prior to the construction of the Zakhira flyover. Nor did

the name of the petitioner find mention in the list of 579 persons

who were identified in the second survey conducted by DDA. Thus,

his case for alternate allotment was rejected on the ground that his

name did not figure in any of the survey lists.

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner

submits that at the time when the survey had been carried out, the

shop of the petitioner was closed on account of the fact that he was

suffering from a prolonged illness and could not attend to his work

as he had been advised bed rest. As a result, the petitioner had

submitted a representation dated 04.08.1984 to the Director (City

Planning), DDA explaining that his shop existed in the area at the

time when the survey was conducted and requesting that his name

be included in the survey list by carrying out an onsite inspection.

She states that thereafter in November, 1984, the petitioner's shop

got burnt down in the riots mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner

had then applied to the Relief Commissioner, Tis Hazari Courts, New

Delhi, seeking financial assistance. It is submitted that the

documents in support of the same have been placed on record and

the originals thereof are in possession of the petitioner.

6. Apart from the above documents, the petitioner relies

on some other documents executed by third parties like the bank

from where he states he had taken a loan and the order passed by

the learned MM, Patiala House Court in support of his claim that his

shop had existed in Zakhira prior to the demolition action that was

undertaken by the DDA. The petitioner also relies on a demolition

list prepared by the respondent/DDA after the demolition action was

carried out at Zakhira on 15.04.1985 in the course of which survey,

the premises of such of the traders at Zakhira who had reoccupied

the site, were demolished. In the said list annexed as Annexure P-6

of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner's firm, M/s Pal Auto

Electrics Works features at serial No.21 and the address mentioned

against the same is T-721, Zakhira.

7. It is submitted that from the year 1985 onwards, the

petitioner had been making representations and complaints to

different authorities seeking alternative allotment of a plot but to no

avail. Finally, he received a letter dated 22.11.1993 from the

Commissioner (Land), DDA calling upon him to visit his office but

nothing materialized even thereafter. The petitioner states that he

was made to run from pillar to post in this entire period but no

action was taken by the respondent/DDA in the matter of allotment

of an alternative plot to him. Finally, the petitioner lodged a

complaint dated 06.04.2000 with the D.C. West for the allotment of

an alternative plot which was in turn forwarded to the

respondent/DDA for appropriate action. The petitioner also filed a

complaint dated 06.10.2000 with the Human Rights Commission

that had in turn forwarded his complaint to the Vice Chairman,

DDA.

8. On 27.09.2001, the petitioner lodged a complaint with

the Dy. Director L.S.B. (Industries), DDA for allotment of an

alternative plot and in the same month, he filed a complaint before

the Lok Adalat, DDA. After considering the case of the petitioner,

Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.), who was acting as the Presiding Officer,

Lok Adalat, DDA recommended that the case of the petitioner be

considered by the Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Yet

again, nothing resulted from the said recommendation. Finally, the

petitioner approached an advocate so as to file a writ petition in this

Court for alternate allotment of a plot and he handed over his file

and power of attorney etc. to the said advocate for drafting and

filing his case.

9. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing

for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under the bonafide

impression that the advocate who was engaged by him had filed a

writ petition in this Court and was pursuing his case. But later on, it

transpired that the advocate had not filed any writ petition on

behalf of the petitioner and falsely kept informing him that some

dates were given by the Court in the matter and assured him that

the case was pending. After waiting for almost six years, in the end

of November, 2009, when the advocate did not furnish him a copy

of the writ petition that he claimed he had filed in Court, the

petitioner got suspicious and on making enquiries, realized that he

had been taken for a ride. As a result, he lodged a complaint

against the advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar

Council of India. It is submitted that the complaint made by the

petitioner before the Bar Council of Delhi is still pending

consideration before its Disciplinary Committee. Thereafter the

petitioner approached the Delhi High Court Legal Services

Committee, to seek legal aid. The Committee then engaged the

present counsel on his behalf, who has filed this petition. The delay

in approaching the Court by filing the present petition is sought to

be explained by the petitioner in the aforesaid manner.

10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner

also relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court

rendered in a batch of matters pertaining to the allotment of

alternative sites by the DDA to shop/factory/workshop owners who

were displaced on account of the construction of the Zakhira Flyover

including W.P.(C)2153/1994 entitled 'Surjeet Kaur Vs. DDA' and

the proceedings in W.P.(C) No.2946/1991 entitled 'Jaspal Kaur

Vs. DDA & Anr.' She submits that the case of the petitioner herein

also relates to the same area and he is ready and willing to appear

before the respondent/DDA for verification of the documents in his

possession for the Department to satisfy itself with regard to their

genuineness. It is urged that the petitioner ought to be extended

similar treatment as extended to the petitioners in the aforesaid

writ petitions for the allotment of alternate plots, subject to

verification of documents.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA states that as

the name of the petitioner does not feature in any of the survey

lists, he cannot claim parity with the petitioners in the aforesaid writ

petitions, by directing DDA to verify his documents so belatedly.

12. The aforesaid submission is however refuted by learned

counsel for the petitioner, who asserts that the case of the

petitioner herein is similar to the case of Jaspal Kaur (Supra) for the

reason that even in the aforesaid case, the name of the petitioner

therein did not feature in the survey list that was prepared by the

DDA and despite the same, directions were issued by the Court to

the Director (Land), DDA to investigate her case by giving her an

opportunity to produce the documents in support of her claim

whereafter, a report was directed to be submitted in Court. Ms.

Luthra, Senior Advocate states that the petitioner asks for no more

relief than the above and thereafter it shall be for the petitioner to

produce all the documents in his possession for DDA to satisfy itself

and verify his claim for an alternative allotment.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner has been able to satisfactorily explain the

delay in approaching the Court for the relief sought herein and he

ought to be afforded an opportunity to produce all the documents

that are in his power and possession in support of his claim to an

alternative allotment under the Scheme of relocation by appearing

before the Director (Land), DDA, who shall then examine the said

documents and after verifying the same, take an appropriate

decision thereon, in terms of the policy applicable to his case. The

petitioner is, therefore, directed to file a detailed representation

giving all the relevant facts along with the supporting documents

within four weeks from today. The said representation shall be

considered by Director (Land), DDA and after verification of

documents, a decision be taken thereon within a period of three

months thereafter under written intimation to the petitioner.

14. While disposing of the present petition, it is clarified that

this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim

of the petitioner and that DDA shall be at liberty to verify the

documents submitted by him alongwith his representation and then

take a judicious decision in accordance with law and in line with its

policy for grant of alternative plot as allotted to other dislocated

persons on account of construction of the Zakira Flyover. If the

respondent/DDA is satisfied with the genuineness of the documents

produced by the petitioner, an alternative plot shall be allotted to

him within six weeks from the date of completion of requisite

formalities by him.

15. The petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to

bear their own costs.

(HIMA KOHLI) Judge MAY 17, 2012 'anb'/rkb