Hoti Lal vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2014 Latest Caselaw 702 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                     Date of Decision: February 05, 2014
+                               LPA 817/2013
      HOTI LAL                                          ..... Appellant
                   Represented by:    Mr.Rajender Dutt, Advocate
                                      versus
    DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
    & ORS.                                     ..... Respondents
             Represented by: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with
                             Mr.Anchit Sharma, Advocate for
                             R-1/DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Residents of a slum cluster which was named by the inhabitants as Sawan Park were proposed to be resettled by the Delhi Development Authority by relocating the slum dwellers to Wazirpur Residential Area Phase-IV in the year 1984. The slum cluster had come up on land comprised in Khasras No.646, 649 and 650. A survey was carried out and a list prepared in which the names of persons residing in the Jhuggis were entered. Appellant was one such person. He was intimated of he being entitled to a 32 square meter plot of land in Wazirpur Residential Area Phase-IV. But before appellant could obtain possession of the alternative plot a writ petition No.4106/1991 was filed in this Court by Shiv Raj Singh and others alleging nepotism in the survey list. They alleged names of actual inhabitants omitted from the list and ghost names entered. They questioned the procedure followed to draw up the list.

2. Vide decision dated July 30, 1993 W.P.(C) No.4106/1991 Shiv Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. DDA & Ors. was allowed. The survey list was scrapped with a direction issued to draw up a fresh list.

3. Admittedly an alternative plot ad-measuring 32 square meters has been allotted to petitioner's father, Sh.Hari Singh in lieu of he being relocated from the slum cluster in question, and the issue which concerns us is whether the appellant would be entitled to an independent allotment of a plot. This takes us into the issue on fact : Whether appellant has proved residing in the slum cluster independent of his father or whether the documents upon which appellant relies simply shows him to be residing in the slum cluster and hence the probability that he and his father were residing in the same tenement in the slum and thus entitled to only one allotment.

4. We find that the entire gamut of documentary evidence relied upon by the appellant before the competent authority of DDA has been exhaustively noted and dealt with in the decision dated January 14, 2013, which reads as under:-

"ORDER

The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10.3.2011 that the petitioner (in WPC No.11253/2009 & CM APPL 11305/2009), namely Sh.Hoti Lal shall appear before the undersigned on 20.4.2011 at 2:30 PM with all the relevant documents that he has produced earlier:

The Hon'ble High Court further directed that the verification exercise should be undertaken on the basis of the petitioner's claim that he was residing separately at Jhuggi No.77B/411, Sawan Park as of 1984 and thereafter decision should be communicated within 4 weeks from the date of hearing.

Sh.Hoti Lal submitted his representation on 11.4.2011 and 25.7.2011 along with copies of the documents and also appeared in person. The following documents submitted by him have been examined:

1. The voter I.Card No.DL/04/053/153033 and Delhi Admn. Card No.166818 which show address of petitioner as N- 778/411 but are of 1995 and 1990 respectively hence of considered relevant (P-278 and 279/C).

2. The SC caste certificate has bene issued on 14.10.86 showing address as 646, Sawan Park. This is being discussed after wards (280/C).

3. Voter list/electoral roll of 1983 of polling station No.6 ward No.31 Wazirpur, Sawan park (huts) showing his name at Sl.No.358. This document does not show his address hence it is not relevant (281-282/C).

4. Immunization card of his daughter is of 646 Sawan Park but entries are of 1985 hence not relevant (283/C).

5. Ration Card No.BPL 53070232 and BPL 53330456 showing his address as N-70B/411, but these are of 6/08 and 8/2002 respectively, hence not relevant (284-285/C).

6. Ration Card No.223036 shows address as 646, Sawan Park does not show its date of issue legibly (287/C).

7. Ration Card No.8351 shows address as 646, Sawan Park and issued on 27.2.1981 (288-290/C).

8. Registration certificate of his father issued by AD of Industries (RS) showing his address as T-272, Sawan park in 5/82. This does not show that the petitioner was not living with his father. Similar is the position of the Caste Certificate of his father (291/C).

Following documents have been submitted with his letter dated 25.7.2011.

9. The downloaded form from Department of Food & Supply, GNCTD official website is of no help as the referred ration card is of 6/08. Similar the certificate dated 25.7.2011 of Inspector of Circle No.17 is of no help as it states about the ration card issued in 2002 while we need proof of per 1984M (293&294/C).

Following documents have been submitted with his letter dated 25.7.2011.

10. Certificate issued by General Secretary, Bunkar Vikas & Sudhar committee (Regd.) (P-295 and 296/C) clarifying that the Khasra No.646, 649 and 650 which have re-numbered as N-77, Block A, B & C and the voter I.Cards were also issued accordingly. It is also certified that old address of 646, Sawan Park of Shri Hoti Lal was changed to N-77, B-411, Sawan Park.

11. Certificate issued by Sh.Hari Shankar Gupta, MLA (297/C) showing address of Sh.Hoti Lal as N-77, B-411, Sawan Park. This does not show that he was residing at the same address before 1984.

12. An affidavit by Sh.Hoti Lal declaring that original ration cards were surrendered to Ration office which issuing subsequent ration cards.

I have perused the documents filed by Sh.Hoti Lal for allotment of alternative plot but the documents submitted by him for establishing his claim are related for the year 1990 and onwards and not as of 1984. He was failed to establish that he was residing separately in Jhuggi No.77B/411, Sawan park as of 1984. Hence, his claim for allotment of alternative plot cannot be considered and hence rejected.

It may be mentioned here that his father, Sh.Hari

Singhwas allotted plot No.A-306 at Wazirpur Phase-IV and the name of Sh.Hoti Lal was appearing in the Ration Card of Hari Singh. As per recommendations of the allotment Committee, two alternative plots cannot be allotted to one family against one Ration Card."

5. The said decision was challenged before the learned Single Judge who has dismissed the writ petition observing that the slum cluster was relocated in the year 1984, which is a matter of fact, and thus any document relied upon by the appellant post 1984 would be liable to be ignored.

6. The learned Single Judge has noted that the only document on which appellant was attempting to build the case was a ration card showing appellant to be the head of his family residing in a Jhuggi in Khasra No.646. From the fact that appellant's father was admittedly residing in a Jhuggi in the same slum complex, the learned Single Judge has reasoned that the ration card would not show that the appellant was residing separately from his father.

7. Now, the Jhuggi number in which appellant's father was residing was 77-B/426. It assumes importance to note that the ration card on which appellants relies does not disclose the Jhuggi number in which he was residing. The ration card simply refers to one out of the three khasra numbers on land whereof the slum cluster had come up.

8. It is settled law that on a question of fact based on evidence the decision by the executive would not be reappraised by a Writ Court exercising appellate power. Pertaining to executive decisions limited judicial review is to see whether the decision making process was fair. The merits of the decision has not to be gone into.

9. The decision making process would include an inquiry whether the

executive has properly attracted its decision to the issue before it and further whether all relevant material has been considered and none ignored. It would also include a consideration whether irrelevant material has been considered while taking the decision. But not a re-appreciation of the material considered.

10. The order dated January 14, 2013 has duly considered 14 documents relied upon by the appellant. The decision making authority has opined that documents post 1984 were irrelevant to establish a claim of residence as of 1984.

11. What is of utmost importance is that the decision making authority has noted that appellant's father was allotted a plot No.A-306, Wazirpur, Phase-IV and that while so doing ration card submitted by appellant's father was considered as proof of residence in a Jhuggi in the slum cluster and that said ration card included appellant's name as a member of the family of Hari Singh.

12. All relevant material being considered by the authority concerned, we are satisfied that the executive decision does not suffer from any procedural irregularity or unfairness warranting interference.

13. We concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition filed by the appellant was liable to be dismissed.

14. The appeal is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2014/mamta