Delhi High Court
Surender Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 April, 2015
Author: Suresh Kait
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 20th April, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 8828/2011
SURENDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Ld. Counsel (Appearance
not given)
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr. Arun Birbal and
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advs. for DDA.
Mr. R.V. Sinha and Mr. A.S. Singh, Advs.
for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed for allotment of the plot
measuring 25 Sq. Yds. to the petitioner under Resettlement Scheme
of the respondent against the then Cluster (Jhuggi) No. B-149,
Outram Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person to the extent
of 70% and at present to sustain his livelihood, he is selling slippers
on the footpath in Delhi.
3. The petitioner's family migrated to Delhi during partition. In
the year 1986, for the purpose of reallocation / resettlement of the
persons who were residents of the afore-mentioned cluster, the
respondent conducted a survey on the cluster. The respondent's
official uprooted / demolished the cluster of the petitioner and
handed over a demolition slip B-149 to him. In the demolition slip,
a number 190 was allotted, which established that the petitioner was
a resident of the then cluster known as "Kingsway Camp".
4. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner vide receipt
no. 284584 dated 21.08.1989 through Central Bank of India
deposited a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent / DDA in
pursuance of the demolition of the petitioner's cluster and towards
cost of reallocation of plot.
5. Thereafter, the petitioner vide letters dated 13.09.1991 and
03.02.1992 respectively requested the officials of the respondent to
allot resettlement plot in pursuance of the amount deposited by him
on 21.08.1989. Between the year 1992 and 2008, special
messenger of the petitioner as well as the petitioner himself visited
the office of the respondent on many occasions and requested the
officials of the respondent for allocation of the plot under Re-
settlement Scheme and also made numerous correspondences with
the respondent; however, there was no response from their side.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the DDA, it is
stated that the CBI had mentioned that there was a scam involved.
Therefore, in pursuance of the proceedings dated 19.09.2012 and
subsequent letters of DDA, CBI handed over copies of the survey
registers to the officials of DDA on 03.01.2013. Further stated that
CBI had seized total number of 33 survey registers and it was
informed that out of the 33 Registers, 5 Registers have already been
found forged through the assistance of CFSL. Copies of these 5
Registers were not made available to DDA as the same are stated to
have been filed in Tis Hazari Courts in pursuance of the FIR no.
RC-DAI-2007-A-0025. The copies of remaining 28 registers have
been made available to DDA. It was seen from the survey register
no. 11 provided by CBI that the name of Sh. Surender Kumar, S/o,
Dwarka Nath exists at Sl. No. 190/5790, B-149, however, till date,
the original record is retained by CBI.
7. It is further stated that the CBI had informed that the
investigation in the matter is still not complete and the case
continues to remain under enquiry. The CBI is unable to confirm
the genuineness of the Register or entry.
8. It is further stated that till the investigation of the CBI is
complete and his fate together with the result of CFSL is provided
to DDA, the DDA is not in a position to verify the eligibility of the
petitioner for allotment of plot under redevelopment scheme of
Kingsway Camp.
9. I note, vide orders dated 18.07.2013 and 14.01.2015, this
Court directed CBI to file status report in this respect. Accordingly,
the status report is on record, whereby it is stated that the case of
the petitioner was never dealt by CBI in the aforementioned FIR.
Hence, the question of giving any conclusion by CBI in the matter
of the present petition does not arise. Moreover, the records as
sought by DDA in CM. NO. 9372/2012 have already been provided
to them.
10. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI submits that
since the CBI is not seized with the matter, they have no objection,
if the DDA allot the plot in favour of the petitioner.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the case of the
petitioner was never been a part of the investigation of CBI and it is
still with the DDA.
12. Since, the petitioner has deposited the complete amount,
therefore, DDA is directed to allot a plot in favour of the petitioner
as per his eligibility in the same area or in any part of Delhi within
three months after due verification.
13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
APRIL 20, 2015
jg
