Delhi High Court
Gulzari Lal vs Delhi Development Authority & ... on 19 October, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: October 03, 2012
Pronounced on: October 19, 2012
+ (1) W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 (Lead case)
OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (2) W.P.(C) 4027/2011
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 1 of 20
+ (3) W.P.(C) No. 6850/2011
SANTO DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri, Mr.
Devendra Kumar Sharma &
Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (4) W.P. (C) No. 4028/2011
GANGA RAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 2 of 20
+ (5) W.P.(C) No.4029/2011
RAGHUBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (6) W.P.(C) No.4031/2011
KARTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 3 of 20
+ (7) W.P.(C) No.4032/2011
M/s SANT PLASTIC COMPANY ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (8) W.P.(C) 4034/2011
SOHAN LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 4 of 20
+ (9) W.P.(C) No. 4035/2011
GULZARI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (10) W.P.(C) 4036/2011
KISHORI LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 5 of 20
+ (11) W.P.(C) 4038/2011
AJIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (12) W.P.(C) 6719/2011
UMED SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms. Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 6 of 20
+ (13) W.P.(C) 6724/2011
HANUMAN BUSWALA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (14) W.P.(C) 6725/2011
JEET KUMAR DAYMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 7 of 20
+ (15) W.P.(C) 6848/2011
SURESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (16) W.P.(C) No. 6849/2011
KULWANT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 8 of 20
+ (17) W.P.(C) No. 6851/2011
BABU LAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri,
Mr. Devendra Kumar Sharma
& Ms.Rubi, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
& ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (18) W.P.(C) No. 1354/2012
RAJINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Sapra, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (19) W.P.(C) No. 1355/2012
HARI NARAYAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Sapra, Advocate
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 9 of 20
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (20) W.P.(C) No. 1363/2012
SHRI RADHEY SHYAM ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Sapra, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
+ (21) W.P.(C) No.1367/2012
OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Sapra, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. .....
Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Ms.Kanika
W.P.(C) No. 4026/2011 & connected matters Page 10 of 20
Agnihotri, Ms.Radhika Gupta,
Mr.Rahul Bhandari and
Mr.Devvrat Singh Raghav,
Advocates for respondent -
DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
1. In the above captioned twenty-one writ petitions, direction is
sought to respondent- DDA to withdraw its demand-cum-allotment
letters (issued during the period from November, 2010 till April, 2011)
demanding premium @ `16,931/- per sq. meter for allotment of plots
in PVC Market, at Tikri Kalan, Delhi and to direct respondent-DDA to
accept premium @`7374/- per sq. meter as per the original demand
letter of 12th January, 2000.
2. In the year 1995, a major fire had devastated PVC Market, at
Jwalapuri, Delhi and then it was decided by respondents to shift the
PVC Market to Tikri Kalan, Delhi. Petitioners are PVC traders, who
claim to be the original allottee of sites at Jwalapuri, Delhi and the
other category comprised of encroachers / squatters, who were there in
the aforesaid PVC Market. During the years between 1996 to 2002,
respondent-DDA had allotted plots of size varying between 40-55 sq.
meter to 1306 such encroachers and after identifying 479 original
allottees of plot in PVC Market, Jwalapuri, Delhi, who had plots of 21
sq. meter and 84 sq. meter, they were offered plots of 45 to 55 sq.
meter and 124 to 131 sq. meter at the new PVC Market, Tikri Kalan,
Delhi in the year 2000.
3. Instead of accepting the aforesaid offer of plots at PVC Market
in Tikri Kalan, Delhi, petitioners through their association had
represented to respondent-DDA to seek allotment of bigger size of
plot of 300 sq. meter at PVC Market, Tikri Kalan, Delhi with
increased FAR. However, there was no response from respondent-
DDA to petitioners' Representation made in the year 2000 itself but
even petitioners remained silent till they had received communication
from respondent-DDA in the year 2006-2007 revising the rate of plots
in question from `7,374/- per sq. meter to `9,813/- per sq. meter for
allotment of plots in PVC Market at Tikri Kalan, Delhi. Thereupon,
petitioners of W.P.(C) Nos. 6851, 4028, 4036, 6719, 6724, 6768, 6748
to 6850 of 2011 had deposited varying amounts in the year 2006-2007
and thereafter but not the demanded amount with the exception of
petitioners of WP(C)No.4027/2011 & 4029/2011 having deposited the
demanded amount. Petitioners in the remaining writ petitions, except
that of WP(C)Nos.4035/2011 and 6725/2012, had deposited varying
amounts after filing of the writ petitions but again not the demanded
amount and while entertaining their writ petitions, they were allowed
to make interim deposit @ `9,813/- per sq. meter instead of demanded
amount @ `16,931/- per sq. meter. No amount had been deposited by
petitioners of WP(C)Nos.4035/2011 and 6725/2011 till filing of the
writ petitions by them.
4. Again there was a complete silence from the year 2007 till
March, 2010. In the meeting chaired by Lieutenant Governor: Delhi
on 28th April, 2010, it was resolved that premium for plot in PVC
Market at Tikri Kalan will be charged on the basis of pre-determined
rates (PDR) applicable on the day of payment of premium deposited
for Jwalapuri plots plus additional amount as per Authority Resolution
and in the follow-up meeting of 7th December, 2010, it was finally
resolved that the premium of plots allotted to PVC traders at Tikri
Kalan would be charged on the basis of PDR applicable on the date of
payment of premium deposited for Jwalapuri plots updated by levying
interest as per Authority Resolution and as the amount of updated
PDR was found to be more than the current PDR of Tikri Kalan plots,
the approval accorded by Lieutenant Governor : Delhi was to charge
lower of the two rates from the allottees.
5. In February, 2011 revised premium @ `16,931/- per sq. meter
for the plots in PVC Market at Tikri Kalan, Delhi was demanded in
pursuance to the respondent's decision as reflected in (Annexure -
R1/3) with the counter filed by respondent - DDA. Most of the
petitioners had made representations in May, 2011 against impugned
premium demanded in February, 2011 and when there was no
response to representations of petitioners, they had filed the instant
writ petitions.
6. The stand of respondents as taken in the counter affidavit filed
by respondent - DDA, is as under:-
"On receipt of calculations from Finance, it was
gathered that the amount of premium to be raised to an
individual allottee was much higher than the amount of
premium so calculated taking into account the current
PDR for the year 2010-11 i.e. `16,931/-. Therefore, the
matter was discussed in the meeting of the Senior
Officers of DDA held at Raj Niwas on 7.12.2010. The
following decision was taken:
Para 31 of the Minutes:
Present Commissioner (LD) mentioned that the Hon'ble
Lt. Governor at the meeting taken by him on 28.04.2010
has approved that premium of plots allotted to PVC
traders at Tikri Kalan would be charged on the basis of
PDR applicable on the date of payment of premium
deposited for Jwalapuri plot, updated by levying interest
as per Authority's Resolution PC(LD) mentioned that
the amount of updated PDR is more than the current
PDR at Tikri Kalan plot. In view of this, Hon'ble Lt.
Governor approved that lower of the two rates should be
charged from plot owners."
7. It is asserted by learned counsel for petitioners that the revision
of the premium for the plots in question is arbitrary and since
allotments in question were made in the year 2000 therefore,
respondents cannot charge premium for these plots at any other rate
than the one disclosed at the time of allotment of these flats in the year
2000 i.e. @ `7,374/- per sq. meter. It is vehemently urged on behalf
of petitioners that there is no reasonable basis to enhance the premium
amount for these flats from `7,374/- per sq. meter to `16,931/- per sq.
meter as respondent - DDA has already allotted plots to squatters of
PVC Market @ `2,500/- per sq. meter only and allotment of plots in
question has been made to other persons in PVC Market at Tikri
Kalan, Delhi at a much lesser rate. To substantiate it at the hearing,
copies of some allotment letters of March, 2011 were shown to the
Court to indicate that premium of the plots in question of a lesser size,
is @ `3,040/- per sq. meter and `9,813/- per sq. meter. Thus it is
contended on behalf of petitioners that revised premium for the plots
in question is not liable to be paid by petitioners who were allotted
these plots way back in the year 2000 and so the applicable rate of
premium would be `7,374/- per sq. meter and not @ `16,931/- per sq.
meter as demanded by the respondents.
8. To controvert the stand of petitioners as noted herein above,
learned counsel for respondents contends that Communication of 12th
January, 2000 by respondent - DDA was not a demand notice but was
a general circular, by which offer was made to allot the plots in PVC
Market at Tikri Kalan which was not accepted by petitioners who had
sought allotment of larger size of plots, with more FAR and
reasonableness of price fixation of the plots in question, is a policy
decision of respondents which is not open to judicial review as it is not
shown that it was vitiated by colourable exercise of power or was
discriminatory. Reliance is placed upon decisions in Gupta Sugar
Works Vs. State of U.P. & others 1987 (Supp) SCC 476, H.S. Gupta &
others Vs. Delhi Development Authority, AIR 1999 Delhi 59 and
Shakti Cottage Industries & others Vs. Delhi Development Authority,
2000 (53) DRJ 664 in support of stand taken as aforesaid.
9. Having dwelt upon the contentions advanced, decisions cited
and the material on record, it becomes apparent that Communication
of 12th January, 2000 of respondent - DDA to the President of PVC
and Plastic Waste Dealers Association is a crucial basic document
which would throw light on the controversy in question i.e. whether
aforesaid Communication was an offer for allotment of these plots or
was infact an allotment of the plots in question. A bare reading of this
Communication of 12th January, 2000 would reveal the true picture
and so it is being reproduced below:-
12.01.2000
COMMERCIAL LANDS BRANCH
F-100(88)/99/CL/DDA/61
Director (CL)/DDA
Shri Hira Lal Badsiwal
President of PVC & Plastic Waste Dealers Association
S-119, PVC Market, Jawalapuri,
New Delhi - 110041
Subject : Allotment of plots of original allottee/legal
transfer of Jwalapuri Market Traders at Tikri Kalan.
Kindly refer to your letter dated 09.04.99 and
24.05.99 on the subject cited above. I am directed to
inform you may kindly convey to all the members of the
Association who were allotted plots in PVC Market,
Jwalapuri or are legal transferee of such plots to apply
in the prescribed format for allotment of alternative plot
in PVC Market, Tikri Kalan by 31.01.2000. Necessary
application forms alongwith terms and conditions of
allotment can be purchased from the Sales Counter
located at 'D' Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi from
17.01.2000 on payment of Rs.50/- only. The premium for
land at Tikri Kalan has been currently fixed @ Rs.
7,734/- per sq. meter for a plot size of 124 sq. meter and
131.75 sq. meter and Rs.6,146/- per sq. meter for a plot
size from 25.20 sq. meter to 53.50 sq. meter. I may also
inform you that the rates will be irrevocable from the
allottees who do not surrender the plots allotted to them
at PVC Market, Jwalapuri. However, if the allottee
surrenders the original plot allotted at PVC Market,
Jwalapuri, he will be charged pre-determined rates of
Rs.3,687/- per sq. meter for a plot size of 124.00 sq.
meter and 131.75 sq. meter and Rs.3,492/- per sq. meter
for plot sizes from 25.20 sq. meter to 52.50 sq. meter.
These rates are applicable upto 31.03.2000.
In this connection, I may also inform you this is the
final opportunity which is being given to the PVC dealers
and no request thereafter shall be entertained for
alternative allotment in PVC Market, Tikri Kalan or
elsewhere.
-sd-
(Suraj Roy)
Director (CL)/DDA"
10. Aforesaid Communication of 12th January, 2000 of respondent -
DDA upon which case of the petitioners is based, was an offer for
allotment of plots of different sizes for which the current rate of
premium was `6,146/- per sq. meter and `7,374/- per sq. meter and for
the PVC dealers and Plastic Waste dealers who would surrender their
allotment of plot at PVC Market Jwalapuri, the pre-determined rates
chargeable then was quite nominal i.e. @ `3,492/- per sq. meter and
`3,687/- per sq. meter. No doubt, most of the petitioners had
submitted their application forms in February, 2000 itself for allotment
of additional plot in PVC Market at Tikri Kalan but they became
dormant after making representation to obtain larger size of plots with
increased FAR, till they had received the impugned Communication
requiring payment of premium at the current pre-determined rates.
Pertinently, petitioners had taken no steps to question revised pre-
determined rate of `9,813/- per sq. meter for the plots in question,
when demanded by the respondent from petitioners in the year 2007-
2008.
11. Since there was no unequivocal acceptance of the offer of plots
in question made in February, 2000, by petitioners, nor premium of
these plots at then prevalent pre-determined rates was deposited by
petitioners, therefore, they cannot legitimately claim that allotment of
plots in question be made to them in the year 2011 at pre-determined
rates as prevalent in the year 2000. For the delay and lapses on the
part of petitioners, they have to suffer because enforceable right would
have accrued to petitioners if they had accepted the offer of plots in
question made in February, 2000 to them by paying the premium
demanded by the cut-off date. Having not done so, petitioners cannot
legitimately assail current pre-determined rates for allotment of larger
size of plots now made to them vide impugned demand-cum-allotment
letter in February, 2011 as these allotment letters are proceeded by
draw of lots.
12. Had petitioners complied with the stipulations in
Communication of January, 2000, in letter and spirit to promptly seek
allotment of plots in question, then only they could have obtained
these plots at the then prevalent rates. Having defaulted, now
petitioners cannot have the plots in question at the then prevalent rates,
precisely for the reason that even if the then prevalent rate is adopted
still applicable interest as per respondent - DDA's Authority
Resolution is payable, which would make the updated pre-determined
rates more than the current pre-determined rates and respondents have
already taken a decision that lower out of the two rates i.e. updated
pre-determined rates and current pre-determined rates should be
charged from petitioners who have been allotted the plots in question
in February, 2011 after draw of lots.
13. Respondents' policy decisions of 28th April, 2010 and 7th
December, 2010 (Annexure - R-1/3 colly.) cannot be labeled to be
arbitrary, by simply asserting so at final hearing without pleadings,
thereby denying opportunity to opposite side to controvert it. How
and on what basis, it is so asserted by learned counsel for the
petitioners, it is not disclosed. Fixation of current pre-determined rates
is neither shown to be faulty nor can it be so inferred from the material
on record. Even calculation of impugned premium demanded is not
shown to be erroneous. So petitioners have no basis to allege that the
current pre-determined rates are exorbitant as the same cannot be
compared with the pre-determined rates of the year 2000. Even if
pre-determined rates of the year 2000 is adopted, still with stipulated
levy of interest for the intervening period, it infact exceeds the current
pre-determined rates. Having scrutinized the aforesaid policy
decision, I find it to be informed with reason as it takes into account
the ground reality that the business of PVC traders and Plastic Waste
dealers/squatters is inter-dependable but both of them are not at par
and so allotment of plots of varying size to these two different set of
allottees has a reasonable basis and thus respondents' policy decision
(Annexure - R-1/3 colly.) cannot be termed to be arbitrary or
discriminatory.
14. In view of the aforegoing narration, this Court finds that the
impugned premium demanded by respondents is neither vitiated by
vice of arbitrariness nor can be said to be discriminatory as it is not the
case of the petitioners that they have surrendered their original plots at
PVC Market Jwalapuri and so they cannot claim the allotment of these
plots at a rate lesser than the one demanded by the respondents. Since
by virtue of an interim order in these matters, petitioners were
permitted to pay the premium for these plots @ `9,813/- per sq. meter,
therefore, while vacating the interim order, these writ petitions except
W.P.(C) No. 4027/2011 & W.P.(C) No. 4029/2011 are dismissed
while granting four weeks time to petitioners to pay the premium
demanded after adjusting the payments already made by them. If the
needful is not done within the above stipulated period, then
respondents would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the
applicable rules and regulations. Petitioners of W.P.(C) No.
4027/2011 & 4029/2011 are held to be entitled to allotment of plots
allocated to them at pre-determined rates of the year 2007 i.e. @
`9,813/- per sq. meter, as they had promptly paid premium amount
when demanded and because silence of respondent - Delhi
Development Authority after afore-deposit remains unexplained.
15. With aforesaid directions, these writ petitions and the pending
applications are disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their
own costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
October 19, 2012
mk/rs
