Suraj Prakash And Ors. vs Delhi Development Authority
2013 Latest Caselaw 1990 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: 01.05.2013

+      W.P.(C) 7213/2003

       SURAJ PRAKASH AND ORS.                                    ..... Petitioner

                             Through: Shri Pradeep, Advocate for the petitioner
                             alongwith Mr. Surender Kumar Malik, son of the
                             petitioner.

                    versus

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                               ..... Respondent

                             Through     Shri Ajay Verma, Advocate for the
                             respondent.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                             JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

The petitioners before this Court were occupying shops in Outram Line of

Kingsway Camp. A scheme was prepared for redevelopment of Kingsway Camp

area known as Kingsway Camp Rehabilitation Scheme. Besides, 233 shops on the

main road there were 27 other shops in the area, 11 in Hudson Line, Kingsway

Camp and 16 in Outram Line, Kingsway Camp. Initially, the redevelopment

scheme was prepared by L&DO and later on it was transferred first to MCD and

then to DDA.

2. While implementation of the aforesaid scheme to shops No.7 to 16 situated

in Outram Line, which were on L&DO land were taken over and alternative plots

measuring 50 square yards each were allotted to the occupants of those shops near

Banda Bahadur Marg, DTC Depot by way of draw. The remaining six shops

bearing shops No.1 to 6 were not taken over at that time since, they were not

required for the purpose of the aforesaid scheme. Similarly, the shops on Hudson

Line were also taken over and the occupants of those shops were allotted

alternative plots in Hudson Line itself. Subsequently, in the year 1994, DDA

required the remaining „6‟ shops in Outram Line for the purpose of pushing back

shops No.1 to 62. The pushing back of those shops was necessary for the purpose

of widening the road. The DDA, therefore, allotted alternative plots measuring 100

square yards each to the occupants of those 6 shops.Initially, DDA had given

allotment only to three person but remaining three person then filed a writ petition

where an order was passed by the Court for allotting plots to the petitioners before

the Court and consequently plots measuring 100 square yards each came to be

allotted to the occupants of remaining three shops as well.

3. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that they have been

discriminated against DDA by allotting to them plots measuring 50 square yards

each whereas, the occupants of those shops which were taken over in the year 1994

have been allotted plots measuring 100 square yards each. This is also the case of

the petitioner that since a policy decision had been taken by MCD to allot plots

measuring 100 square yards each to the occupants of the shops whose shops were

required as a part of implementation of the Kingsway Camp redevelopment

scheme, they are entitled to plots measuring 100 square yards each.

4. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners with their rejoinder

would show that a resolution No.243 dated 07.05.1971 was passed by the standing

Committee of MCD for allotting shops measuring 100 square yards each to those

whose shops were to be demolished. The said resolution reads as under:

"All the shops in Hudson Line are 15ft. Wide and, therefore, all the shop plots have been proposed as 15‟ x 60‟ i.e. 100 sq. Yds. With residential use at first floor and Barsati floor. All the shop plots have been adjusted at their present sites except a few shops falling under the proposed 100 ft. Master Plan read near Najafgarh drain. A few shop plots of the same size i.e. 15‟ x 60‟ have been added in the space made available by relocation of roads between the existing shops and at the ends to accommodate the affected shops."

5. Mr. Verma informs that later, DDA took a decision in December 1987, to

allot plots measuring 50 square yards each to the occupants of the shops in Hudson

Line. It was pursuant to the said decision that the petitionersg before this Court

were offered plots measuring 50 square yards each, which they duly accepted by

paying land premium in respect of plots measuring 50 square yards and later lease

deed were also executed in their favour. The allotment came to be made in the year

1989. When the remaining 6 shops were later on required by DDA in the year

1994 for the purpose of redevelopment of Kingsway Camp, for the purpose of

pushing away the shops of the persons, whose shops were partly required for the

purpose of widening of the road, DDA took a policy decision to allot plot

measuring 100 square yards each to 3 shop keepers whose shops were initially

required and later on incompliance of the order passed by this Court, the occupants

of the remaining 3 shops were also allotted plots of same size.

6. The petitioners despite being aware of the resolution passed by MCD in its

meeting held on 07.05.1971 accepted allotment of plots measuring 50 square yards

without any demur or protest. Not only they paid the land premium and took

possession of the plots which were allotted to them by the DDA, lease were also

executed in their favour without any protest from them. Having accepted the

allotment offered to them by DDA, it is not open to the petitioners to say that they

should have been allotted plots measuring 100 square yards each in terms of the

resolution passed by MCD on 07.05.1971. Moreover, in administrative decision

taken by the MCD by way of a resolution does not bind DDA which is a statutory

authority wholly independent on MCD. In any case, the petitioners having

accepted allotment of plots measuring 50 square yards each are now estopped from

claiming plots of a larger size.

7. As regards, the plea of discrimination, I find no merit in the plea taken by the

petitioners. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent what

has to be seen is as to whether any discrimination was made qua the petitioner at

the time of allotment of plots measuring 50 square yards was made to them.

Admittedly, there was no discrimination at that time since no one similarly situated

to the petitioner before this Court was allotted a plot measuring more than 50

square yards. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the petitioner have been

discriminated again by not allotting plots measuring 100 square yards each to them.

8. In any case, if the petitioners were aggrieved on account of plots allotted to

them being less than 100 square yards each, in contravention of the resolution

passed by MCD, they ought to have come to Court at the time plots measuring 50

square yards each offered to them. They slept over the matter for as many as for 14

years and did not bother to come to the Court till the time DDA allotted plots

measuring 100 square yards each to the occupants of certain other shops.

Therefore, the petitioners are clearly guilty of laches, by not remaining vigilant for

enforcement of legal right claimed by them.

There is no legible explanation given by the petitioner for not approaching

the Court for as many as 14 years since the time 50 square yards each plots were

offered to them and the allotment came to be accepted by them.

9. For the reasons stated above I find no merit in the writ petition and the same

is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to cost.

V.K. JAIN, J

MAY 01, 2013 ss