Delhi High Court
Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 ... vs Delhi Development Authority on 7 December, 2015
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 07.12.2015
+ LPA 844/2015 and CM No. 28039/2015
ROHINI RESIDENTIAL SCHEME 1981 ASSOCIATION
..... Appellant
Through: Dr. Amitabha Sen, Ms Getanjali
Sethi and Ms Garima Yadav and Ms Aditi
Pandey, Advs.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Dhanush Relan, Standing
Counsel, DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by an order dated
11.09.2015 made by the learned Single Judge issuing restricted notice
in W.P.(C) No.8525/2015. They approached the Court claiming
various reliefs, one of which was that the plot size could not have
been reduced by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA)--the
respondent in these proceedings.
2. All the appellants had registered in the Rohini Residential
Scheme, 1981 and are allottees under the Scheme, which, has not yet
completed handing over the possession.
LPA No.844/2015 Page 1
3. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order issued
restricted notice declining the relief in respect of the plot reduction. In
doing so, the learned Single Judge was influenced by the previous
judgment of this Court in Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan
vs. Delhi Development Authority & Ors. 2005 (80) DRJ 699.
4. Counsel for the appellant strenuously urged that the learned
Single Judge fell into error in issuing this restricted notice as the
grievance of the appellant is with respect to the plot reduction. It was
emphasized that there was a change in the circumstances after the
judgment in Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan (supra) was
rendered. To say so, learned counsel relied upon the reply to a query
under the RTI application given by the DDA on 09.09.2008. That
reply had been filed as Annexure P-13 and part of the appellate
record. In the reply, DDA has stated that 4680 hectares of land was
taken over by the DDA from the Land & Acquisition Department for
the development of the Rohini Residential Scheme till date. It was
also reported that 70.76 acres of land was under encroachment in
various litigations. The record further has placed on the file of the
Court several copies of correspondence between DDA and the Central
Government. The matter was again gone into by a Division Bench of
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8765/2009 (Rahul Gupta vs. DDA and
Anr.) where the Court monitored the various facets of the scheme and
status reports were filed. Eventually, on 14.03.2012, the Court had
issued directions with respect to the allotment of developed plots and
also in respect of the development of the entire area and its vicinity.
Even this was the subject matter of SLP No. 16385-16388/2012
LPA No.844/2015 Page 2
(Rahul Gupta vs. Delhi Development Authority), which was disposed
of on 10.03.2015. The Court had indicated time-schedule within
which the developments had to be completed and further ensured that
no Court would entertain any application for grant of interim
directions with reference to the allotment and execution of work.
Further directions were made in the matter.
5. The DDA, on its part, urges that even though plots were
reduced and the matter attained finality, the question of its being
asked to increase the plot size in view of what in the petitioner's
perception constitutes later development does not arise. It is pointed
out that the reply to the RTI query merely states the total extent of
land handed over to the DDA and that it cannot be assumed that these
lands were made only for the residential scheme of which the
appellants are allottees or that they were not taken into account in all
the pending proceedings before this Court. It was further alleged that
with the enactment of the Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, a large extent of land has been de-notified by
operation of Section 24(2); it is rendering the entire process of
assessment of lands available to the DDA. It is submitted that in these
circumstances keeping in mind the petitioner's limited right having
regard to the decision in Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan
(supra), the appeal should not be entertained.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties. Major
General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan (supra) is a final decision which
declares that an allottee does not have a right to a particular size in a
plot at the stage it was offered. At the very most, there was an
LPA No.844/2015 Page 3
indicative range. At the stage when learned Single decided the Major
General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan (supra), the initial plot reduction
had taken place. The solitary reply to an RTI query made in 2008, in
this Court's assessment, cannot constitute a re-assessment evaluation
of the entire availability of the land all over again seven years after the
information was initially supplied; the issue acquires greater
importance and more acuteness given that all the facts and issues
appear to have been considered in Rahul Gupta (supra) where a spate
of orders were made in the development of the locality taking into
consideration both plots and flats. In fact, the Supreme Court is
seized of the matter. Given these considerations and constraints, the
learned Single Judge's decision to issue restricted notice cannot be
faulted.
The appeal is therefore unmerited and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 07, 2015
BG
LPA No.844/2015 Page 4
