Delhi Development Authority vs Mata Prasad
2013 Latest Caselaw 1582 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     LPA 486/2012 & CM 11241/2012 (stay)
      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
                                                     ..... Appellant
                      Through: Ms. Shobha Takiar, Adv.

                          versus

      MATA PRASAD
                                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through:     Mr. C. Mohan Rao and Mr. Lokesh
                                       Kumar Sharma, Advocate with
                                       respondent in person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                     ORDER

% 08.04.2013

Vide application dated 25.2.1981, the respondent Mr. Mata Prasad applied for allotment of residential plot measuring 26 sq. metres in Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. In the application form, he claimed to be a member of Scheduled Caste category. A Scheduled Caste certificate was also submitted by the respondent. However, instead of including in Scheduled Caste category, the name of the respondent was included in the General Category. Alleging that had his name been included in the Scheduled Caste category, he would have been allotted a Janta Flat way back in the year 1990, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking directions to the appellant DDA to hold a mini draw for allotment of a plot in a developed sector of Rohini to him at the old rates. Though the name of the

respondent was later included in the Scheduled Caste category, no draw of lots was held for him. On notice of the writ petition being issued to the appellant, a counter affidavit was filed stating therein that the Competent Authority had vide order dated 21.2.2011 decided to change the category of the respondent from General to SC and thereafter consider him for allotment of Janta Flat under the Rohini Residential Scheme in the next draw of lots, he being a Scheduled Caste registrant, who had not been allotted any plot. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of the aforesaid decision, the respondent would be allotted Janta Flat in the next coming draw.

2. When the writ petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant DDA assured the Court that the respondent would be allotted a Janta Plot in the next draw to be held under the Rohini Residential Scheme. In view of the counter affidavit and the aforesaid submission, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the direction to the appellant to hold a mini draw for allotment of plot to the respondent as per his entitlement within eight weeks from the date of the order. It was further directed that the cost of the plot shall be computed by charging interest @ 7% per annum on the 1990 cost, payable from 1.4.1993 to 31.3.2010.

3. The respondent filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 2.2.2012 contending that he should be allotted plot in a developed sector of Rohini at the old rates. The learned Single Judge modified the order dated 2.2.2012 by directing the DDA to hold a mini draw for allotting a plot to the respondent out of those plots which are available in those

sectors which were available in the year 1990, when the entitlement of the respondent had matured. She rejected the contention of DDA that such an order would amount to permitting the respondent to claim a right of allotment of a particular plot in a developed sector. The learned Single Judge also modified the order dated 2.2.2012 by directing DDA to handover possession of the plot to the respondent within four weeks of his completing the formalities, though the earlier direction was to issue allotment letter to him. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, DDA is before us by way of this appeal.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the registrant had already sold the plot allotted to him without prior permission from DDA. She also expressed doubt about the identity of the person who had filed the writ petition. Since the respondent was present in person in the Court, we have recorded his statement. In his statement, he has maintained that he was the person who had applied for allotment of a plot under Rohini Residential Scheme of DDA. Though there are some discrepancies with respect to the employment of the respondent, according to his counsel these discrepancies have occurred on account of fading of memories of the respondent with the passage of time. Since nothing really turns out of these discrepancies with respect to the place of employment of the respondent and the person who is present in the Court has brought an Election Card issued to him by the Election Commission of India showing not only his name, but also the name of his father, we have no material before us to conclude that the person present before us is not the same person who had got registered himself with DDA. The Scheduled

Caste certificate submitted by the respondent has also been verified and accepted by DDA, which is yet another proof of his identity. In any case, if DDA was disputing the identity of the respondent, it ought to have claimed so before the learned Single Judge. It is not possible for us, to go into the question of facts, such as identity of a registrant and take a view - one way or the other. In this regard, we also take note of the fact that when the writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel representing DDA assured the Court that a Janta plot would be allotted to the respondent in the next draw of lots. This statement made by the learned counsel was in consonance with the counter affidavit which DDA had filed in the writ petition on 26.4.2011.

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that since the respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition only in the year 2011, there is no justification for allotting the plot at the price prevailing in the year 1990. She further contended that the directions to allot plot only in a developed sector is absolutely unjustified, since no allottee can claim allotment in a particular sector. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the respondent, states that the respondent is ready to pay the price of the plot as prevalent on the date of filing of the writ petition. As regards allotment in a developed sector, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that since other persons whose turn matured in the year 1990 got plots in sector, which have since developed, he also should be allotted plot in a developed sector. We, however, find no merit in the contention made by the learned counsel for the respondent. While granting relief, the Court cannot be oblivious to the fact

that though the respondent claimed that his term for allotment of plot in Scheduled Caster category matured in the year 1990, he waited till the year 2011 to bring his grievance before the Court. Nothing prevented the respondent from coming to the Court soon after his term had matured, for allotment of a plot. In our opinion, considering the fact that respondent approached this Court by way of a writ petition only in the year 2011, direction to issue a plot to him only in a developed sector cannot be justified and it would be for the DDA to allot a plot wherever it deems appropriate irrespective of whether it is so called developed sector or it is a new sector which is yet to be developed.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we dispose of this appeal by directing that the appellant DDA would allot a plot measuring 26 sq mtrs to the respondent by holding a mini draw for this purpose, unless such a draw has already held and a plot has already been allotted to him. We also direct that the respondent would be required to pay such price for the plot as was prevalent on the date of filing of W.P(C) No.1204/2011 i.e. 21.2.2011.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No orders as to costs.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 08, 2013 rd