Low Income Friends Coop. G.H.B. ... vs Dda And Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 2897 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Reserved on: 02.03.2016
                                                 Pronounced on: 22.04.2016

+      W.P.(C) 3292/1992
       LOW INCOME FRIENDS COOP.G.H.B.SOCY.LTD...... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Rakesh Munjal, Sr. Advocate
                                with Mr. Ankur Arora and Mr. Mohd.
                                Atif, Advocates.
                       versus

       DDA & ORS.                                       ..... Respondents

                          Through:     Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate, for
                                       Respondent No.1/DDA
                                       Ms. Mamta Chandel, GP for
                                       Respondent No.3/UOI.
                                       Mr. Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC
                                       (Civil), GNCTD.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

%

1. This writ petitioner seeks a direction that the respondents should allot land to it.

2. The facts in brief are that the Petitioner (hereafter "the Society") was registered on 13.03.1961. It purchased land for development and for ultimate allotment to its members; in fact 75 plots were developed and so allotted; they were even registered in favour of the allottee members. On 23.01.1961, the Government of Delhi (then Delhi Administration) issued a declaration in respect of the Society's land, under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 1 vesting ownership in the State. The Society felt aggrieved and approached the Punjab High Court through a writ petition, because that Court had jurisdiction over Delhi. On 16.02.1967, the Delhi Administration informed the Society that it would be allotted developed plots in the Wazirpur Area. It is stated that consequent to this assurance, the Society withdrew its writ petition. However, the Society alleges that the Delhi Administration reneged on its assurance and rejected its representation for allotment of plots by a letter dated 01.02.1969. The Society filed a writ petition, No. 965/1973 for release or allotment of land to it. Much later, on 14.06.1984, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (RCS) cleared or approved the names of 88 members of the Society and recommended them for allotment. Apparently, in 1985, a few members of the Society approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, claiming that some members had been kept out of the General Body meeting.

3. In the wake of all these developments, on 12.02.1988, the RCS issued an order withdrawing the recommendation clearing the names of some of the Society's members. The aggrieved members of the Society, approached the Lieutenant Governor, challenging this order. The Lieutenant Governor, by his order dated 18.01.1989 held that the RCS could not have reviewed the earlier order of 1984 clearing the Society's members names for allotment for the purposes of ownership of residential plots. He also held that those enrolled for the purpose of securing plots would be seriously prejudiced and that the regularization of the land under occupation of the Society (which had been acquired) did not mean that the Society could not acquire more land to fulfill the needs of those enrolled later. The petitioner Society, in addition relied on a letter addressed by the RCS to the Delhi Development

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 2 Authority ("DDA") on 03.06.1987 asking it to consider the Society's request for allotment of land to fulfill the needs of 97 members sympathetically.

4. It is urged by the Society that in spite of the directions and orders of the Lieutenant Governor, the respondents have not initiated any action. Mr. Rakesh Munjal, learned senior counsel urges that the materials on record suggest that the final decision of the authorities of the respondent culminated in the order of the Lieutenant Governor of 18.01.1989. There was nothing on record to show that the petitioner Society or any of its members were ineligible for allotment. The long and chequered history of this case suggests that the respondents repeatedly reneged on their promise to allot lands which would have fulfilled the residential needs of the Society's members. Contending that once the RCS's decision was revoked by the Lieutenant Governor, counsel stressed that all the authorities, i.e. the RCS as well as the DDA (of which the Lieutenant Governor was the head, as Chairman) had to fall in line. Not countenancing or honoring his order would mean that a lower or inferior official's order and authority would prevail, despite the orders of the final authority empowered in law to take a particular decision.

5. The respondent RCS in the counter affidavit states that the petitioner was registered in 1961 and had earlier purchased a piece of land at Village Azadpur. It had developed and allotted plots to its members in 1962 and 1963. The RCS also admits that the petitioner Society executed sale deeds in favor of the members. Subsequently its lands were notified for acquisition by the Delhi Government. At that time the DDA had assured the petitioner Society for allotment of alternative plots to its members. The DDA had also supplied an outline plan to the petitioner Society.

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 3

6. The RCS contends that since most of the houses (of the petitioner's members) had been built on the land that stood acquired, it was not considered appropriate to take possession of such developed/land plots allotted by the Society to its members. They were in fact regularized by the Government in 1978 as a freehold colony. As a result of these developments, the purpose for which the Society was incorporated, stood satisfied, by the allotment of plots to all its members. After allotment of land, none of the Society's members remained on the list for further allotment of land.

7. It is contended by the RCS that as a matter of policy the Delhi Government had decided not to allot plots to any housing societies or house building societies. Societies were given the option to continue as Group Housing Societies. This was in terms of a uniform policy directive and order issued on 05.07.1977 by the RCS. Significantly no Society could have enrolled members in excess of its approved strength. Therefore, the enrollment of 87 new members and subsequent designation of 10 members against alleged vacancies was not appropriate or authorized. The RCS further alleges that keeping 68 members in a waiting list too was unsupported by any policy or law and further reiterates that since the Society had allotted plots to its original members from its own resources in 1962-63 and keeping in mind further regularization of its members' plots as a colony itself, the matter should have been taken up further with the DDA.

8. The RCS admits that even though he had cleared the list of 88 persons enrolled by the Society for land allotment in Shalimar Bagh in June 1984, this was withdrawn on a proper appreciation of all facts. It is further stated that the majority of members were enrolled by the petitioner Society after 1984. The enrollment of such members was in fact contrary to provisions of

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 4 the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act and the rules framed under it. In support of these submissions the RCS relies upon the directive of 05.07.1977.

9. The 05.07.1977 directive listed four categories of members of various societies. The first category comprised of members enrolled before 03.08.1967 whose names were included in the "freeze list" and also registered with the RCS. The second category was of persons originally included in the freeze list as on 03.08.1967 but later expelled from membership of the Society. The third category was of persons claiming to have been enrolled before the 03.08.1967 but due to some omission their names did not find place in the freeze list. The last category comprised of those enrolled subsequent to the 03.08.1967.

10. The directive also contained guidelines for the examination of those claiming membership in societies and awaiting allotment and who are members of societies which were awaiting land clearance by the RCS and allotment of suitable land by the DDA.

11. The DDA's position before the Court more or less supports the submissions of the RCS. It urges that the Society's members were allotted land in 1962-63 itself after land was developed for the purpose. No doubt these lands were notified for acquisition; however, those members allotted these plots were given relief because it was found unfeasible to take possession of those lands. It is submitted that the occupied land on the part of such individuals was regularized as a colony. The question of giving any alternative land would have arisen had in fact the land purchased by the Society been taken away from it. In the facts of this case the petitioner's members were not put to any loss or inconvenience.

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 5

12. DDA's counsel urges that so far as the other contentions are concerned, the question of allotment of land to any other member would arise only if the Society fulfilled all the criteria spelled out in the relevant provisions of law governing site allotment. It was submitted, therefore, that the DDA's policy of allotment of land to societies has to be in conformity with the provisions of its parent enactment and the Constitution. What the Society is really seeking in these proceedings is that its members' needs be fulfilled to the extent of enrollment of those who were inducted later around 1984. The DDA submits that since the petitioner Society and its members do not figure in any waiting list or do not fulfill the criteria evolved for the purpose of land allotment by the respondents, the relief claimed in this petition cannot be granted.

Analysis and Findings

13. The above factual discussion would reveal that the petitioner Society was incorporated in 1961; it was able to purchase and acquire land, to fulfill the needs of a large number of its members. These members were allotted plots - which were even registered. The plots were occupied (presumably houses and residential units were also built upon them). In this background, when the Delhi Government notified the lands for acquisition, an assurance was obtained by the Society for alternative land would be given to the Society. However, the Government felt it impracticable and inexpedient to dispossess such member/allottees and did not pursue with acquisition. It, therefore, concededly "regularized" the entire colony which had been created by the petitioner's allotment. Later, in 1984, the petitioner wrote to the respondents asking for allotment of additional land for its 97 members.

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 6

14. The writ petition avers about the filing of earlier writ proceedings by a few of the Society's members, who alleged irregularities in the conduct of its affairs. However, there is no elaboration of the pleadings or facts on this score. The narrative then jumps to withdrawal of assurance by the RCS, who initially had recommended the allotment of plots. That order by the RCS was challenged before the Lieutenant Governor, who directed that the lands should be given and the previous order, honoured.

15. The entire edifice of the petitioner's case is pivoted on the recommendation of the RCS, in his letter of 14.06.1984 to the DDA, to consider the case of its 97 members "sympathetically" for allotment in the Shalimar Bagh residential layout developed by the DDA- and not the society. As the later order dated 12.02.1988 clarifies, the original recommendation was made because at that time it was felt that the allottees (who numbered

82) would be displaced due to acquisition. As the averments and materials in support of the writ petition confirm, there was no need to displace those allottees, because the structures built by them and the entire locality where those residences were housed, was regularized. These are supported by the two documents, which speak of a committee report of the DDA, leading to its Commissioner's letter dated 31.05.1977 and the resolution Item No. 1/82 considered and decided upon by DDA. In these circumstances, the Society could not legitimately have claimed that there was any purpose for insisting that allotment of land - by way of plots developed by DDA in a scheme conceived and launched by it was an entitlement to other 97 members who appear to have been enrolled later.

16. This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that DDA and other public agencies purchase or acquire lands at enormous expense to fulfill the housing

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 7 needs of the citizens of India and those living in Delhi. These agencies are answerable to the law, which includes the parent enactments under which they operate and the Constitution of India, which mandates non- discrimination and equal protection of the law. If the petitioners were to have their way and the Court were to grant the relief claimed by them these agencies would be in effect acting on the whims of some officials or authority (howsoever highly placed) and allocating valuable resources developed or acquired with public funds, on no rational criteria. That the petitioners were promised land at some point, might be a fact; equally, however, there was a shift in the realities with regularization of the constructions that were initially covered by acquisition. The Society, therefore, could not legitimately claim land for subsequently enrolled members.

17. In view of the above findings, this writ petition has to fail. It is accordingly dismissed, without order as to costs.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

DEEPA SHARMA (JUDGE) APRIL 22, 2016

W.P.(C) 3292/1992 Page 8