Delhi Administration vs Narain Singh & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 9386 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                       Date of Decision: 17th December, 2015
+        LPA 501/2012
         DELHI ADMINISTRATION                     ..... Appellant
                  Through: Mr.Naushad Ahmed Khan, Advocate

                    Versus

         NARAIN SINGH & ANR.                                ..... Respondents
                  Through: Mr.R.K. Saini, Advocate
         CORAM:
         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

                           JUDGMENT

: Ms.G.ROHINI, CHIEF JUSTICE

1. The respondents herein filed W.P.(C) No.4836/1993 seeking a mandamus to hand over the possession of the plots allotted to them under the 20-Point Program of the Government. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 31.10.2011 holding as under:

"17. In the instant case, Respondents have not only legal obligation but also social responsibility to honour their commitment of allotting land to the landless residents of the Village Rangpuri for dwelling units. Since questions of fact as regard to the availability of the Gaon Sabha land under the 20-Point Program of the Government cannot be determined in these proceedings, therefore it would be appropriate to direct the second

Respondent to hold an Inquiry in order to determine as to why previous sanction in terms of Rule 178 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 was not accorded prior to issuance of the allotment letters in question and to locate the land which can now be made available for achieving the purpose of 20-Point Program of the Government and after requisite sanction, to frame a criteria for allotment of the land under this 20-Point program to the petitioners and persons similarly situated after determining their eligibility. Petitioners would be at liberty to make their claims by way of representations within four weeks to the Second Respondent who shall get the same inquired into while affording opportunity of hearing to the authorised representative of the petitioners and alike and to obtain a report within three months from the Inquiry Committee so constituted and thereafter, make the report public, to enable the affected persons to avail of the remedy as available in law. Thereafter, follow up action be taken forthwith."

2. The said order was impugned in LPA No.501/2012 by the Delhi Administration. A Division Bench of this court dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 13.07.2012. However, the appellant/Delhi Administration was granted three months time for compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4836/1993. As against the said judgment, the Delhi Administration preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.39062/2012. While dismissing the same with costs of Rs.2.5 lacs payable to the writ petitioners within a period of one month, the Supreme Court directed:

"For filing a frivolous petition, the petitioner is saddled with cost of Rs.2.5 lacs. The amount of cost shall be paid

to the respondents within a period of one month from today and compliance report be submitted to the High Court within six weeks. Thereafter, the matter be listed before the Division Bench of the High Court. If it is found that the petitioner has failed to implement the direction given by the learned Single Judge and has not paid costs to the respondents, then the Bench shall be free to initiate proceedings against the defaulting officers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971."

3. In pursuance thereof, LPA No.501/2012 was listed before the Division Bench of this court on 11.03.2013. On the next date of hearing i.e. 12.03.2013, though it was reported by the appellant/Delhi Administration that the costs were paid, time was sought for filing the report regarding compliance of other directions.

4. Such a report in Hindi appears to have been filed in the Registry on 21.03.2013. The matter was again adjourned to enable the Delhi Administration to file an English version of the inquiry report and ultimately the same came to be filed on 19.07.2013.

5. On the basis of the said report, it is sought to be contended by Sh.Naushad Ahmed Khan, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for GNCTD that the directions of the learned Single Judge have been complied with. However, the same has been contradicted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. In the circumstances, by order dated 25.08.2014, we have directed the concerned District Magistrate to file a detailed affidavit furnishing the particulars of the steps taken in terms of the directions of the learned Single

Judge dated 31.10.2011. We also directed that in case any of the directions are not implemented, the affidavit must disclose the reasons for the same. Such an affidavit has been filed by the District Magistrate, Jam Nagar House, New Delhi on 03.11.2014. The rejoinder thereto has been filed by the writ petitioners on 20.01.2015.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the inquiry report filed on 19.07.2013, the affidavit of the District Magistrate dated 03.11.2014 as well as the further affidavit dated 30.07.2015 explaining the subsequent events.

7. Since the matter has been listed before us in terms of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP No. 39062/2012 to look into the compliance report regarding implementation of the directions given by the learned Single Judge, we shall at the outset analyse the said directions:

(i) The Director (Lands), Delhi Administration shall hold an inquiry in order to determine as to why previous sanction in terms of Rule 178 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 was not accorded prior to issuance of the allotment letters in question.

(ii) To locate the land which can now be made available for achieving the purpose of 20-Point Program of the Government.

(iii) After requisite sanction to frame a criteria for allotment of the land under the 20-Point Program to the petitioners and persons similarly situated after determining their eligibility.

(iv) The petitioners are at liberty to make their claims by way of representations within four weeks to the Delhi Administration who shall get the same inquired into after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the other applicants and to obtain a report within three months from the Inquiry Committee.

(v) The report of the Inquiry Committee shall be made public to enable the affected persons to avail of the remedy as available in law.

8. In the report filed by the Delhi Administration on 21.03.2013/19.07.2013, it is stated:

(i) A Committee has been constituted to conduct an inquiry consisting of Shri Vivek Kumar Tandon, Additional Standing Counsel, Shri Surender Singh, BDO (SW), Shri O.N. Singh, BDO (HQs), Shri Rajiv Kumar, Tehsildar (VV).

(ii) It is found that the Gaon Sabha, Rangpuri passed a resolution to the effect that the plots will be allotted as per Rules to the persons whose names are found in the list contained in the said resolution. However, there was no reference in the said resolution regarding seeking prior approval from the Deputy Director (Panchayat).

(iii) It is also found that there are other infirmities and procedural lapses in the allotment as it contained some khasra numbers which do not form part of Gaon Sabha land.

(iv) Thus, the issuance of LR 37 Receipts as well as allotment certificates were contrary to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat since the Gram Pradhan failed to follow the Rules while issuing the said allotment certificates.

(v) The SDM and Tehsildar (VV) were also directed to identify the land available which can now be allotted under the 20-Point Program.

9. To substantiate the findings in the said report, the District Magistrate, New Delhi, Jam Nagar House filed an affidavit dated 03.11.2014 stating that the Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner (South-West) vide order dated 25.07.2012 to inquire and determine as to why previous sanction in terms of Rule 178 of Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 was not accorded prior to issuance of certificates to the petitioners and also to locate the land which can now be made available for achieving the purpose of 20-Point Program. That apart, notice was also served on all the persons in whose favour the resolution was passed by the then Gram Panchayat, Rangpuri Village dated 14.08.1980 calling for certain details/clarifications. Out of 173 persons whose names appeared in the Resolution Register, 93 persons including the writ petitioners appeared before the Inquiry Committee on 30.08.2012 and 31.08.2012 in support of their claims for issuance of the allotment certificates. During the interaction, it was noticed that out of 96 applicants, 52 died. Ultimately, the Committee gave a report stating that the provisions of the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959, more particularly, Rule 178 was

not followed and previous sanction was not obtained before issuing the allotment certificates. It was also found that the resolution was not in respect of Gaon Sabha but in respect of other private land. It is further stated that most of the Gaon Sabha land had been notified as "Ridge" in four rural villages i.e. Rangpuri, Rajokari, Gitorni and Samhlka.

10. However, in the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the conclusions reached by the Committee are not based on record and it is absolutely incorrect to state that no Gaon Sabha land is available in Village Rangpuri. It is also contended that the "Ridge" notified area belongs to Public Works Department and therefore there cannot be any bar to allot the said land.

11. As could be seen, there is no consensus regarding the availability of the alternative land. Whatever may be the reason, the fact remains that the writ petitioners have not been put in possession of the plots allotted to them till date. It may be true that the resolution passed by the Gaon Sabha, Rangpuri did not refer to the prior approval as required under the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959 and that there were procedural lapses in issuing the allotment certificates. However, it has already been held by this court as well as the Supreme Court that the same cannot be a valid ground to allow the Delhi Administration to wriggle out of their commitment to honour the allotments made to the petitioners.

12. On a perusal of the report filed by the Delhi Administration, it appears to us that they failed to come out with any justifiable reason as to why the previous sanction was not obtained before the allotment letters were issued to the petitioners. Except repeating the stand taken earlier that the resolution of the Gaon Sabha and the issuance of the allotment certificates were not in conformity with the provisions of

the Delhi Panchayat Raj Rules, 1959, it appears to us that no genuine effort is made to locate the land which can now be made available for achieving the purpose of 20- Point Program of the Government. From the material available on record, prima facie we are of the view that the difficulty sought to be projected for implementation of the directions of the learned Single Judge is not genuine but only an attempt to circumvent the said directions which have attained finality.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, prima facie we are of the view that there is deliberate and intentional violation of the directions given by the learned Single Judge and thus the appellants are guilty of contempt of court.

14. Registry is directed to register a Contempt Petition against the appellant and the Contempt Petition be listed before the concerned Roster Bench.

15. The proceedings in LPA be accordingly closed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

JAYANT NATH, J DECEMBER 17, 2015 kks