Delhi High Court
Pushpa Wanti & Ors. vs Dda on 19 February, 2020
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgement reserved on 14.01.2020
% Judgement pronounced on 19.02.2020
+ W.P.(C) 925/2015
PUSHPA WANTI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through : Mr. J.K. Bhola and Mr. Vishal
Kumar, Advs.
versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Pawan Mathur, Standing Counsel
for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.:
Preface:-
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2014
passed by the respondent i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter
referred to as "DDA").
2. The principal and the only grievance of the petitioners is that their
request for upgradation for allotment of a plot under category A of the
Gadgil Assurance Scheme (in short "the scheme") in block 8A, WEA, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi, has been rejected.
Background
:-
3. The petitioners have approached this Court for the third time.
3.1. In the first instance, they had instituted a writ petition which was
numbered as W.P. (C) No. 9024/2007. This writ petition was disposed of by
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 1 of 20
this Court on 04.07.2012. Via this order, the petitioners were directed to
make a comprehensive representation to the DDA, with a corresponding
direction to the DDA, to dispose of the same within twelve weeks.
3.2. Notably, this direction came to be passed on account of the fact that
the petitioners had taken a stand in the rejoinder (based on certain
documents) which, according to the Court, the DDA had not had a chance to
rebut.
3.3. Consequent to the aforementioned direction issued by this Court, the
petitioners made a representation on 17.07.2012 which was disposed of by
the DDA vide order dated 17.04.2013.
3.4. In this order i.e. order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the DDA, it was
noticed that the petitioners had produced before the authority that had passed
the order i.e. Director (Lands), the following documents in original.
(i) The date of birth certificate of Shri Madan Lal (who is the father of
petitioner No. 2 to 7 and husband of Smt. Pushpa Wanti). This certificate
showed Shri Madan Lal's date of birth as 11.01.1930 and the place of his
birth as Multan (now, in Pakistan).
(ii) Copy of Ration Card dated 20.07.1950 which bore the name of Shri
Madan Lal.
(iii) Notice of payment/assessment of damage notice dated 07.01.1965,
issued by DDA/COD. The period under this notice spanned from 01.01.1952
till 31.03.1964
(iv) An unsigned census slip.
(v) Receipts for payment of damages issued by the DDA between 1965
and 1985.
(vi) Demolition Slip dated 30.03.2000
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 2 of 20
3.5. Furthermore, the aforementioned order i.e. order dated 17.04.2013
also adverted to the fact that petitioner No. 1 (i.e. Smt. Pushpa Wanti) had
been recommended for allotment of a plot in category B under the Scheme
and that her husband's request for upgradation to category A was rejected
vide DDA's letter dated 04.11.1980 on the following ground:
"....that your request for placing you under Category 'A' cannot
be acceded to because the occupation of site in question is post
August 1950. However, you have been placed in Category 'B' by
the Allotment Committee....."
3.6. This apart, in the very same order, it was pointed out that the
petitioners had failed to produce the following documents:
(i) Refugee Registration Certificate in the name of Shri Madan Lal i.e.
(ii) Voter's list of 1951showing the name of Shri Madan Lal.
(iii) Duly signed and dated census slip
3.7. As noted hereinabove, the census slip which was produced by the
petitioners was unsigned and undated.
3.8. In the order, a reference was made to the fact that Shri Mandan Lal's
father i.e. one Late Shri Ram Dass had two wives, namely, Smt. Virawali
and Smt. Lajwanti. The order went on to say that Late Shri Ram Dass, from
his wedlock with Smt. Virawali, had two sons i.e. Shri Darshan Lal and Shri
Madan Lal and that from his wedlock with Smt. Lajwanti he had one son,
namely, Shri Suraj Prakash.
3.9. The order adverted to the fact that Smt. Lajwanti had succeeded to the
property of Late Shri Ram Dass who was allotted a plot under the Scheme
and that she, in turn, had executed a registered will in favour of Shri Suraj
Prakash.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 3 of 20
4. The order concluded by adverting to the fact that it is on account of
this reason Shri Madan Lal, the husband of petitioner No. 1, was not issued a
separate Refugee Registration Certificate although he may have migrated
alongwith his father to India upon partition.
4.1. It was reasoned in the order that the Scheme envisaged allotment of a
plot to the "family head" and not to all members of the family. In this
behalf, a reference was made to the property numbered as T-5335/8A,
WEA, Karol Bagh.
4.2. It was, thus, held that the petitioners could not be considered for
upgradation to category A; as was conveyed to them vide letter dated
04.11.1980. Curiously, the order also went on to state that the legal heirs of
Shri Madan Lal (i.e. the petitioners) were claiming rehabilitation on the
basis of the same property qua which petitioner No. 1's father-in-law i.e.
Late Shri Ram Dass had been allotted a plot even though allotment under
category B had already been recommended qua petitioner no. 1.
4.3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, once again, approached this Court by
way of a writ petition which was numbered as W.P. (C) 5533/2013. This
writ petition was disposed of via order dated 03.09.2013. The Court, after
noting the operative directions contained in the DDA's order dated
17.04.2013, concluded as follows:
"However, this Court is of the view that the petitioners'
placement in Category-A had to be decided only on the basis as to
whether petitioners were in occupation of site in question prior to
August, 1950 or not.
In the present instance, the petitioners have relied upon a
ration card dated 20th July, 1950 issued in favour of petitioner
No.1's husband, i.e., prior to the cut off date. However, in the
impugned order, the Director (Lands) had not dealt with the said
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 4 of 20
document at all.
Consequently, the impugned order dated 17th April, 2013 is set
aside and the matter is remanded back to the Director (Lands) to
consider the petitioner's fresh representation in the light of the
ration card dated 20th July, 1950 issued in favour of petitioner
No.1's husband along with documents issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of Delhi dated 14thAugust, 1963 as well as the
Census of Squatters which indicates that the petitioners'
occupation was of 1948.
The petitioners are directed to file a file a fresh representation
along with all relevant documents within a period of two weeks.
The Director (Lands) is directed to decided [sic: decide] the
petitioners representation by way of a speaking order within a
further period of twelve weeks.
The petitioner's are directed to appear before the Director
(Lands) on 30th September, 2013 at 3 p.m.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ
petition stands disposed of."
4.4. As directed, the petitioners filed a fresh representation which was
thereafter disposed of via the impugned order dated 24.02.2014.
5. It is in this background that the petitioners, as noticed above, have
instituted the present writ petition.
Submission of Counsel:-
6. Arguments on behalf of the petitioners have been advanced by Mr.
J.K. Bhola, Advocate, whereas on behalf of the DDA, submissions have
been made by Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.
6.1. Mr. Bhola has, broadly, submitted that the controversy in issue falls in
a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the petitioners were entitled to be
upgraded to category A under the Scheme based on a determination whether
they were occupants of the subject hutment prior to 15.08.1950.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 5 of 20
6.2. Mr. Bhola submitted that the controversy, if any, concerning the
eligibility of petitioners under the Scheme stood concluded in their favour,
in view of the fact that they had already been considered fit for allotment of
a plot under category B. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhola, all that the
Court had to consider was (which was also the direction issued by this Court
in the earlier round on 03.09.2013, when W.P. (C) 5533/2013 was disposed
of) as to whether or not the petitioners occupation of the subject hutment
preceded 15.08.1950.
6.3. As per Mr. Bhola, the petitioners' assertion that their occupation of
subject hutment preceded 15.08.1950 is supported by the following
documents:
(i) The ration card issued in favour of Shri Madan Lal dated 20.07.1950.
(ii) The Deputy Commissioner's certificate dated 14.08.1963, which
alluded to the fact that Shri Madan Lal had been carrying on the vocation of
a goldsmith since 1947.
(iii) The squatters census slip which showed that Shri Madan Lal had been
in occupation of the subject hutment in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, since
1948.
6.4. Besides this, Mr. Bhola also relied upon the receipts, which,
according to him, evidenced payment of damages to the concerned
Municipal Corporation since 1952.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Mathur relied upon the impugned order to
resist the relief sought for in the writ petition.
7.1. Mr. Mathur, based on the impugned order contended that the
genuineness of the ration card produced by the petitioner was in doubt. For
this purpose, he relied upon the form filed by Shri Madan Lal on 15.11.1968
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 6 of 20
where the number of the ration card was given AJ-341450. This number
was sought to be cross-referenced with the number given on the ration card
produced by the petitioners. The number given on the ration card is 141590.
7.2. Besides this, Mr. Mathur also contended that the Deputy
Commissioner's certificate on which the petitioners had placed reliance was
of no use as it only alluded to the fact that Shri Madan Lal had been carrying
on the vocation of a goldsmith since 1947.
7.3. Furthermore, Mr. Mathur also referred to the communication dated
26.11.2013 submitted by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short
"NDMC") to demonstrate that the document tilted as "census of squatters",
according to NDMC, had no relevance.
7.4. It was contended that NDMC had not been able to verify the
document since it pertained to a period qua which it did not have the
records.
7.5. This apart, Mr. Mathur laid emphasis on the fact that all along Shri
Madan Lal had been claiming that the hutment in lieu of which he was
seeking allotment of a plot under the Scheme was numbered as T-5335/2,
whereas in the affidavits filed on 31.07.1972 and 05.03.1979 his address has
been disclosed as T-5335.
7.6. Furthermore, Mr. Mathur relied upon the survey list generated by the
DDA concerning unauthorized squatters in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, on
11.05.1981, to demonstrate that in the subject hutment No. T-5335/2, one,
Shri Nanak Chand resided and not Shri Madan Lal.
7.7. Furthermore, according to Mr. Mathur, it is only after the death of
Shri Madan Lal on 02.11.1999, the petitioners have raked up the claim
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 7 of 20
which lay dormant since 04.11.1980. Mr. Mathur submitted that there was
no explanation for delay between 1980 and 1999.
Analysis and Reasons: -
8. As was noticed right at the beginning, the principal grievance and, in
fact, the only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the DDA refusing
to upgrade their category from "B" to "A". This was also the scope of the
remand order by this Court on 03.09.2013 in W.P. (C) 5533/2013. The
operative directions have already been extracted by me in paragraph 4.3
above.
8.1. However, the DDA, on remand, based on a fresh representation filed
by the petitioners qua which opportunity was given by this Court vide order
dated 03.09.2013 has strayed into the arrears which were not strictly within
the ambit of the remand order.
8.2. That being said, it could perhaps be argued by the DDA that while
ascertaining the petitioners right for upgradation of category it was
empowered to look into their eligibility for allotment of a plot.
9. In my view, this stand of the DDA would have to be rejected for the
reason that it flies in the face of its own communication dated 04.11.1980.
This communication was addressed by DDA to the deceased Shri Madan
Lal. The said communication reads as follows:
"Dear Sir,
With reference to your representation dated Sep. 80 on the
aforecited subject 1 am to inform you that your request for
placing you under Category-A cannot be acceded to because your
occupation of the site in question is post-August, 1950. However,
you have been placed in Category-B, by the Allotment
Committee."
(emphasis is mine)
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 8 of 20
9.1. As would be evident upon a plain reading of this communication, the
only point of dispute between the deceased Shri Madan Lal and the DDA
was concerning the category in which he was slotted. According to the
DDA, the deceased Shri Madan Lal had come to occupy the subject
allotment "Post-August, 1950". Therefore, the tenability of the impugned
order dated 24.02.2014 would have to be examined in the background of this
marker.
10. Mr. Mathur has tried to contest the assertions of the petitioners that
they were in occupation of the subject hutment prior to 15.08.1950 by
alluding to the following documents and aspects: -
(i) First and foremost, it is stated that the ration card is illegible.
Incidentally, this is also one of the observations made in the impugned order
dated 24.02.2014
(i)(a) In furtherance of this objection, it is also stated that the number given
on the ration card produced by the petitioners which was 141590 is
discrepant when cross referenced with the form submitted to the DDA on
15.11.1968.According to Mr. Mathur, the ration card number given in the
form is AJ-341450.
(ii) The second objection taken by Mr. Mathur is with regard to the
document titled "Census of Squatters". It is Mr. Mathur's contention that
NDMC was unable to vouch for the veracity of this document.
(iii) The third objection taken by Mr. Mathur is that the form dated
15.11.1968 gave the hutment number as 8A/T-5335 and not 8A/T-5335/2.
(iii)(a) In support of this objection, reference was also made to the two
affidavits filed by deceased Shri Madan Lal dated 31.07.1972 and
05.03.1979 wherein he had described his hutment as T/5335, 8-A Block,
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 9 of 20
WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
(iv) Fourthly, Mr. Mathur stated that the name of the deceased could not
be found in the Voters list of June 1951. In support of his plea, reliance was
also placed by Mr. Mathur on the surveys conducted by the DDA in 1981
and 1998.
(iv)(a) According to Mr. Mathur, against the hutment where the deceased
Shri Madan Lal claimed he resided i.e. T-5335/2, the survey list showed that
the resident was one Mr. Nanak Chand. The argument, thus advanced, was
that the claim for allotment of plot under the Scheme lodged by the deceased
Shri Madan Lal was false.
(iv)(b) In addition to the survey list, reference was also made to the death
certificate produced concerning the deceased Shri Madan Lal wherein his
address was given as E-2/129-A, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi.
(v) The fifth objection was based on the Election card wherein as on
01.01.1994 the deceased Shri Madan Lal's age was shown as 59 years. It
was stated that in the 1961 electoral rolls generated for Delhi, the deceased
Shri Madan Lal's age was shown as 26 years.
(v)(a) It was, thus, contended that if the death certificate concerning Shri
Madan Lal and the aforementioned documents were taken into account then,
in 1947, he would have been aged between 12 and 13 years.
10.1. From this, Mr. Mathur, sought, to conclude (as was also concluded in
the impugned order) that the deceased Shri Madan Lal would have been
residing with his father in the hutment numbered as T-5335 and not in a
separate hutment.
11. I will deal with each of the assertions in seriatim.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 10 of 20
11.1. Insofar as the first objection is concerned that the ration card
produced was illegible, I may only indicate that the impugned order records
that the original ration card was produced before the Director (Lands), DDA
who passed the impugned order. The photocopy which is available on
record, though dim, clearly sets out the name of the person to whom it is
issued, the date of issuance, and the number.
11.2. A perusal of the details given therein shows that the ration card was
issued in the name of the deceased Shri Madan Lal; the date of issuance is
given therein as 20.07.1950; and the number of the ration card is 141590.
Therefore, the observations in the impugned order and the argument of Mr.
Mathur that the details given in the ration card are not legible, to say the
least, are not accurate.
11.3. The other argument made qua the purported unreliability of the ration
card is based on the number of the ration card given in the form filed by the
deceased Shri Madan Lal which is dated 15.11.1968 and is titled "Occupied
any public land before 15th August".
11.4. I may, for the moment, extract the entries given in the form which
may be relevant for dealing with the present objection as well as the other
objections:-
"OCCUPIED ANY PUBLIC LAND BEFORE 15th AUGUST
xxx xxx xxx
I. PARTICUALRS
xxx xxx xxx
1. Name Sh. Madan Lal
xxx xxx xxx
7. Ration Card No. of 1950 (please AJ-341450
attach attested copy of the same)
xxx xxx xxx
II. PARTICUALRS OF THE OCCUPIED LAND
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 11 of 20
4. Municipal House No. 8A/T-5335"
11.5. The entry made against Sl. No. 7 would show that the ration card
number is shown as AJ-341450.
11.6. It is argued by Mr. Mathur that because the ration card number
available with the deceased Shri Madan Lal in the year 1968 was AJ-
341450, the earlier ration card would have to be discarded.
12. To my mind, this objection is not sustainable. Ration card numbers
often change after a period of time. The original ration card, as noted
hereinabove, was issued in the name of the deceased Shri Madan Lal and not
in the name of his father. The original ration card was produced by the
petitioners before the Director (Lands), DDA. In my view, this objection is
unsustainable.
12.1. As is evident from the entries extracted hereinabove from the form,
deceased Shri Madan Lal had been paying damages since 01.01.1952. The
DDA, up until now, has not placed anything before me which would show
that the form, which is obviously an application for establishing that the
deceased Shri Madan Lal had been occupying the hutment prior to
15.08.1950, had been rejected.
13. This takes me to the other objection which is the purported
discrepancy in the hutment number. As noted above, against the entry
requiring the details of "Municipal House number", Late Shri Madan Lal
had given the hutment number as 8A/T-5335.
13.1. There is no dispute that 8A is the Block number, however, based on
the fact that the hutment number is given as T-5335, it is contended that Late
Shri Madan Lal falsely claimed that he resided in hutment number T-5335/2,
as adverted to hereinabove.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 12 of 20
13.2. In support of this plea, reliance is placed on the two affidavits filed by
the deceased Madan Lal which are dated 31.07.1972 and 05.03.1979
wherein he has averred that he resided in T-5335.
13.3. It is important to note that in both the affidavits the deceased Shri
Madan Lal made the following averment:-
"1. That I did not get any rehabilitation benefit from the
Government or any other agency constituted for this purpose and
that I or my wife or any of my dependent relations including
unmarried children do not possess any plot or house in the urban
limits of Delhi."
13.4. It was based on the contents of the form dated 15.11.1968 and the
affidavits dated 31.07.1972 and 05.03.1979 that the DDA, it appears,
accepted the claim of the deceased Shri Madan Lal that neither he nor his
wife or any of his dependent relations, which include his unmarried children,
had any plot or house in the urban limits of Delhi. Therefore, the argument
of Mr. Mathur that the deceased Shri Madan Lal was claiming allotment of
plot when his father Late Shri Ramdass had already been allotted a plot
against hutment No. T-5335 is untenable.
13.5. As noticed hereinabove, the DDA itself concedes that it found
petitioner No. 1 i.e. the wife of deceased Shri Madan Lal suitable for
allotment of a plot in the category B.
14. The attempt of Mr. Mathur to establish that Late Shri Madan Lal did
not reside in hutment numbered as T-5335/2 by referring to the entry made
against Sl. No. 146 in the survey list of unauthorized squatters concerning
Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh conducted on 01.05.1981, to my mind, is
completely untenable. The reason is as follows:-
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 13 of 20
14.1. A perusal of the survey list shows that, apparently, there were
numbers given to the block of huts with sub-numbers.
14.2. Furthermore, wherever the family unit resided in one hutment, they
were bunched together and the category, if any, in which they were put for
allotment of the plot was also adverted to in the list. However, if a part of
the family was living separately, their details were put in the list independent
of the unit which had been considered for allotment of a land.This was true
for several families including the family of Late Shri Ramdass and the
deceased Shri Madan Lal as well.
14.3. By way of an example, some details as per the survey list of
01.05.1981 are set forth hereafter:-
Serial Name with father's T.No Category if any Original Present
No. name/husband's name . decided/Remarks
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
16 Krishan Lal, 5365 A 29 Sq. Yds. 29 Sq. Yds.
S/o HiraNand
17 Lal Chand, 5365 A 29 Sq. Yds. 24 Sq. Yds.
S/o Hira Nand
18 Tilak Raj, S/o Amir 5363 A 68 Sq. Yds. 70 Sq. Yds.
Chand
19 Shashi Daul, S/o Sh. 5363
Tilak Raj
20 Sunder Shyam, S/o Sh. 5363
Tilak Raj
21 Harish Chander, S/o 5363
Tilak Raj
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
23 Chuni Lal, S/o Fateh 5360 A 90Sq. Yds. 90Sq. Yds.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 14 of 20
Chand
24 Nand Paul, S/o Shri 5360
Chunilal
25 Kishori Lal, S/o Chuni 5360
Lal
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
29 Deputy Lal, S/o Shivaji 5355 A 58Sq. Yds. 19Sq. Yds.
Lal
30 Madan Lal, S/o Shivaji 5355
Lal
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
33 Mohan Lal, S/o 5398
NiranjannDass
34 Sat Paul, S/o Niranjan 5398 A 35Sq. Yds. 35Sq. Yds.
Dass
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
46 Ram Lal, S/o Shri 5349 A 50Sq. Yds. 50Sq. Yds.
Mela Ram
47 Balbir, S/o Ram Lal 5349
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
51 Ram Lal, S/o Shri Devi 5353 A 25RSq. 25+35Sq.
Dayal Yds. Yds.
52 Om Prakash S/o Ram 5353 35 Com.Sq. R+CSq.
Lal Yds. Yds.
53 Jugal Kishore S/o Om 5353/
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
61 Smt. Lajwanti, W/o 5335 A 29Sq. Yds. 29Sq. Yds.
Ram Dass
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 15 of 20
62 Darshan Lal, 5335
S/o Ram Dass
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
77 Niranjan Singh, S/o 5327 A 120 Sq. 60 Sq. Yds.
Prabh Singh Yds.
78 Smt. Bhagwanti, Wd/o 5327
Prabh Singh
79 Madan Lal, 5335 B
S/o Ram Dass
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
142 Bihari Lal, S/o Radha 5334/
143 Deputy Lal, S/o 5334/
144 Tilak Raj, S/o Deputy 5334/
145 Shanti Devi, W/o 5334/ A 33 Sq. Yds. 33 Sq. Yds.
146 Nanak Chand, S/o 5335/
Note: Madan Lal at Sl. no. 79 is the h/o petitioner no. 1. Nanak Chand at Sl.
No. 146 is one who is shown at Sl. 54 in the Survey list of 28.05.1998.
14.4. While on this aspect, I may advert to the fact that there is also on
record a survey list of 28.05.1998 prepared by the DDA. This is a
handwritten list. In this list, at Sl. No. 59 against Nanak Chand's name, the
hutment number is given as 5335/2.
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 16 of 20
14.5. Mr. Bhola on behalf of the petitioner says that this list is difficult to
rely upon in view of the fact that except for the name of the purported
occupant other details such as parentage are not given.
14.6. By way of an example and, to demonstrate the possibility of an error
creeping in, my attention has been drawn to Sl. No. 58 where against
hutment No. 8A/T-5335, the occupant's name is shown as Smt. Swarana.
Likewise, against Sl. No. 60, wherein hutment number is shown as 8A/T-
5335/1, the occupant's name is once again shown as Smt. Swarna. Against
Sl. Nos. 61, 62 and 63, the hutment number is given as 8A/T-5335 and the
name of the occupants are Sh. Darshan Lal, Smt. Raj Kumari and Sh. Suraj
Prakash respectively.
15. Based on the record, one can perhaps say that Sh. Darshan Lal and Sh.
Suraj Prakash are the progenies of Late Shri Ramdass. It is not known as to
whether Smt. Raj Kumari is also a relative of Late Shri Ramdass. The name
Shri Madan Lal appears in two places i.e. at Sl. No. 54 and Sl. No. 84
wherein hutment numbers are given as 8A/T-5334 and 8A/T-5355
respectively. It is not known as to whether they are the same persons or the
different persons.
15.1. This position obtains also vis-a-vis entry made against Sl. No. 102 and
Sl. No. 108 wherein, though, the hutment numbers are different i.e. 8A/T-
5369 and 5398, the name is similar i.e. Mohan Lal.
15.2. I may also indicate that the name Smt. Raj Kumari finds reference
against Sl. No. 98 wherein the hutment number is given as 8A/T-5366.
Similarly, against Sl. No. 110, the hutment number is given as 8A/T-5366
but the name of the occupant is given as Baldev Raj. This document seems
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 17 of 20
to move away, to some extent, if not completely, from the position given in
the earlier survey list of 01.05.1981 generated by the DDA.
15.3. In my opinion, the fact that the deceased Shri Madan Lal like the
other occupants in the survey list of 01.05.1981 which is the DDA's own
document was shown separately wherein his category classification was also
disclosed, applying the test of preponderance of probability one could
conclude that his claim was separate from the claim made by Late Shri
Ramdass who had been found suitable for a plot in Category A.
15.4. The other son of Late Shri Ramdass i.e. Shri Darshan Lal, who was
perhaps staying with his father Late Shri Ramdass, was not found suitable
and, hence, was not considered for allotment of a plot in any category.
15.5. This, however, was not the position qua Shri Madan Lal i.e. the other
son of Late Shri Ramdass who, as per the survey list, was found suitable for
allotment of a plot, albeit, in category B.
16. Therefore, in my view, nothing much turns on the fact that the
deceased Late Shri Madan Lal may have, in some place, indicated the
hutment number as T-5335/2.This is more so as the DDA has not been able
to refute the fact that the Late Shri Madan Lal had been paying damages
since 1951.This aspect, as noted above, has not only been disclosed in the
form filed by the Late Shri Madan Lal on 15.11.1968 but is also supported
by the receipts filed in that behalf. The DDA has been collecting damages
from Madan Lal separately and not as part of the family of Late Shri
Ramdass.
16.1. Thus, having collected damages separately, to my mind, the DDA
cannot turn around and say that Shri Madan Lal was not living separately
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 18 of 20
from Late Shri Ramdass, and that the plot having been allotted to Late Shri
Ramdass, the deceased Shri Madan Lal was not entitled to separate plot.
17. For the very same reason, I am not impressed with the objection taken
on behalf of the DDA that the petitioners name does not appear in the voters
list of 1951 or that his age in and about 1950 would be 12-13 years.
17.1. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that migration of people
from Pakistan to India in 1947 and their resultant rehabilitation presented
challenges not only for the administration but also for those who were
seeking refuge in India. The date of births were entered often based on guess
work. Furthermore, people of that generation not only started working
earlier but also married at a much younger age.
17.2. The fact that the Deputy Commissioner's certificate dated 14.08.1963
adverts to the fact that the deceased Shri Madan Lal was a resident of
hutment number T-5335/2, situate in Block 8-A, W.E.A., Karol Bagh, New
Delhi, was a bona fide, displaced goldsmith, and had been working as one,
since 1947 would have to be given weight with regard to not only his
refugee status, and the place of his residence (i.e. T-5335/2) but also qua his
vocation and the fact that he had been engaged in, independently, eking out
his livelihood since 1947.
18. On the preponderance of probability, and based on the material placed
on record, one would have to agree with the petitioners that they were
squatters of the public land prior to 15.08.1950 and that their branch of the
family was separate from the Late Shri Ramdass.
Conclusion: -
19. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I find merit in the contentions of
the petitioners that the impugned order is contrary to the record and, in a
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 19 of 20
certain sense, goes beyond the remit of the remand order dated 03.09.2013.
Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.
20. The petitioners will be upgraded to category "A" and, accordingly,
will be given all benefits as were made available to those who fell in the
category "A".
21. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
c
W.P. (C) 925/2015 Pg. 20 of 20
