Dass Babu Gupta & Ors vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 6269 Del

$~32
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 8145/2015
       DASS BABU GUPTA & ORS                      ..... Petitioners
                    Through: Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Adv.

                           versus

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal and Mr. Sanjeev
                    Sabharwal with Mr. Nikhil Bhardwaj and Mr. Hem
                    Kumar, Advs. for DDA

%                                   Date of Decision   : 25th August, 2015

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

                               JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)

1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking to restrain the respondent- DDA from demolishing the construction on plots owned by the petitioners and/or by removing malba/material situated in New Kondli area of Delhi and from taking possession thereof from the petitioners.

2. Petitioners also seek quashing of clause 5 of the allotment letters dated 20th December, 1988 while allotting plots in New Kondli Area during 1988 to 1991 issued by the respondent-DDA. The said clause 5 reads as under:-

"5. That you will not be entitled to transfer/sell the said residential plot without the permission of the DDA/Govt."

3. Petitioners lastly seek directions to DDA to raise demand in accordance with the minutes of meeting of conversion policy dated 24th December, 2012.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the demolition drive being carried out in respect of the properties is illegal, as no demolition order has been issued and the same has been carried out without following due procedure of law.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that clause 5 of the allotment letter restricting the allottee from selling the plot without obtaining permission from the Government even at the time of immediate need is arbitrary and illegal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-DDA states that three plots, namely, C-2/4, B-2/34 and B-2/35 are vacant and they do not even have a boundary wall. He further states that the entire construction on the other plots mentioned in the prayer clause have been demolished. He asserts that DDA is in possession of the entire land in question.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners controverts the aforesaid submission and states that that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the petitioners have not explained as to how the plots had been transferred by the original allottees to the present petitioners.

9. This Court is of the view that while land in Delhi is scarce and very expensive, the original allottees out of poverty and lack of education are not able to retain an inter-generational asset which is capable of changing not only theirs but also their successive generations life. After all, no one can deny that housing is one of the basic needs of any individual.

10. This Court is of the opinion that if there had been no restriction on sale and conversion upon the original allottees, the intended purpose of such allotments would have been defeated much earlier. The poor, marginalised

and landless who had been allotted land by the State under a rehabilitation scheme, have once again been rendered homeless and landless by the present petitioners. In fact, this Court has no doubt that the action of the petitioners makes the rehabilitation scheme under which land was allotted to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners 'stands on its head'.

11. To say that the land has been allotted with no subsidy is a misnomer as this Court takes judicial notice that land is normally disposed of by DDA in an open auction in which bids received are far higher than the normal cost price of the land.

12. In any event, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners cannot challenge the restriction on sale after having violated the said clause with impunity.

13. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he does not wish to press prayer (b). Accordingly, prayer (b) is dismissed as withdrawn.

14. However, keeping in view the orders passed by this Court on 11th August, 2015 and 14th August, 2015 in WP(C) 6879/2015 and WP(C) 7787/2015 respectively, parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today with regard to construction, title and possession of the plots in question, till further orders.

List on 07th December, 2015.

Parties are directed to complete pleadings before the said date. Order dasti.

MANMOHAN, J AUGUST 25, 2015 NG