Delhi High Court
Jagdish Chand Gupta vs Union Of India on 20 July, 2015
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
$~47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6800/2015
JAGDISH CHAND GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Mukul Gupta, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vibhor Garg and Ms. Suvara Kashyap,
Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yeeshu Jain, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 20.07.2015
CM No.12442/2015 (Exemption)
1. Allowed subject to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 6800/2015
2. Issue notice to the respondent.
3. Mr. Jain accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
4. In view of the order that I propose to pass, Mr. Jain says that no
counter affidavit needs to be filed, at this stage.
5. By this writ petition, a challenge is laid to the communication dated
09.10.2014, whereby the petitioner's request for allotment of an alternate
land was rejected. The reason supplied in the impugned communication is
as follows :-
(i). Occupancy status in respect of property bearing no.3792/4, Kanhaiya
Nagar, Delhi (in short the Kanhaiya Nagar property) and property no.1589
Madrasa Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi (in short the Madrasa Road
property); not provided.
(ii). No documents are provided vis-a-vis property bearing no.C/9/6, First
Floor, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (in short the Rohini property);
which, according to the petitioner had been rented out by him.
6. It is to be noticed that in the first instance, information vis-a-vis
various deficiencies noted by the Land & Building Department, Govt. Of
NCT was intimated to the petitioner vide communication dated 02.09.2013
/ 30.09.2013.
6.1 Amongst various aspect on which information was sought from the
petitioner, information was also asked for with respect to the
aforementioned properties. The exact query (which is set out at serial
no.13, of the aforementioned communication), was as follows :-
"..Ownership proof of property in r/o
1). C/9/6, Ist Floor, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi-85
2). 3792/4, Kanhiya Nagar, Delhi
3). 1589, Madrasa Road, Kashmere Gate,Delhi-6.."
6.2 In response to the same, the petitioner filed the necessary
information, which included, an affidavit. In the affidavit dated
04.07.2014, in paragraph 2 and 3, following averments were made :-
"..2. That the deponent (including unmarried child) does not
have any house /plot/flat in Delhi and Delhi Chhawani, except
in the village Abadi, from the date of land acquisition till
today.
3. That the applicant was reside at the above said address C-
9/6, Sec.-8, Rohini, Delhi-110085 which was a rented
accommodation of applicant.."
6.3 It is because the respondent was not satisfied that when the matter
was taken up in the meeting held by the Land and Building Department on
27.08.2014, the petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that occupancy
status of the aforementioned properties, was not given.
6.4 Pertinently, in the communication dated 02.09.2013 / 30.09.2013,
information sought was with regard to the "ownership proof of the
properties". It appears that the goalpost was changed to some extent as in
the meeting of 27.08.2014, occupancy certificate of the aforementioned
properties was sought. Rejection letter also refers to the purported failure
on the part of the petitioner to supply occupancy status of the aforestated
properties.
6.5 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit
furnished by the petitioner ought to have sufficed as it was categorically
stated in the affidavit that the petitioner did not own any house / plot/flat in
Delhi except in Village abadi.
6.6 In so far as the property at Rohini was concerned, learned counsel
submitted that the petitioner had indicated, that it was a rented
accommodation.
6.7. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that since the
information vis-a-vis ownership was sought, the petitioner thought that this
affidavit would suffice.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, says that
the petitioner ought to have given information on his own with regard to
the status of the properties, whether they were owned or occupied in any
other capacity by him.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record, in my view, the Land and Building Department ought to have
issued further communication to the petitioner after receipt of the affidavit
calling upon him to furnish documents, if any, in his possession vis-a-vis
the aforementioned properties. It is trite to state that no person can prove a
state of affairs in the negative. In case the Recommendation Committee
had any material, to the contrary, it ought to have put that material to the
petitioner and then elicited his response qua such material.
9. In these circumstances, in my view, the best course forward would
be to set aside the communication dated 09.10.2014 and permit the
petitioner to appear before the Recommendation Committee, with the
necessary information, which is available with him. This would, in
particular, apply to the Rohini property since the petitioner has taken a
stand that the said accommodation was rented out by him. If the petitioner
takes the stand in so far as the other two properties (i.e. Kanhaiya Nagar
property and Madrasa Road property) are concerned, that he has no
association and / or knowledge qua them then, he will file an affidavit in
that behalf. In case the Recommendation Committee has material available
with it, which points out to the contrary, the same will be put to the
petitioner and if, the petitioner were to fail in satisfying the
Recommendation Committee then, the Recommendation Committee, will
be free to draw the necessary inference in the matter. It is ordered
accordingly.
10. The petitioner will, thus, appear before the Recommendation
Committee on a notice being issued by it, indicating to him, the venue,
time and the date when, he is required to present himself, before it.
10.1 Needless to say, the Recommendation Committee will pass a
speaking order and furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. The
aforesaid exercise will be done with expedition though, no later than four
(4) months from today.
11. With the aforesaid directions in place, the captioned petition is
disposed of.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
JULY 20, 2015
yg
