TRILOK CHAND TYAGI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — 1984 DIGILAW 314 (DEL)

S. S. CHADHA ( 1 ) THIS petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned orders of the respondents rejecting the applications of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under the Scheme of Larger Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi . ( 2 ) THE facts are not in dispute. The Government of India framed a policy and notified it in the memo dated May, 2, 1961 relating to the control on land values in the urban areas of Delhi, acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. Lands were acquired for the planned development of Delhi as a result of the Chief Commissioner s notifications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. All lands acquired under the scheme had to be developed and disposed of in accordance with the policy. As a general policy, disposal of developed land had to be made by auction and the premium was to be determined by the highest bid, except in the specified cases where land could be allotted at predetermined rates, namely, the cost of acquisition and development plus the additional charge mentioned therein. One of the exceptions was that the land could be allotted to individuals whose land had been acquired as a result of Chief Commissioners notifications specified therein. ( 3 ) THE Delhi Administration invited applications for allotment of alternative plots of land in lieu of the land acquired. A pro forma was prescribed for being filled in by the persons seeking allotment of developed residential plots in lieu of their land acquired under the Scheme of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi-1961 . The petitioner made an application on or about August 9, 1979. The application was dealt with by the Delhi Administration in the Land and Building Department. The Land and Building Department by letter dated September 7, 1979 called upon the Land Acquisition Collector to verify the particulars of the land acquired and to furnish the information to the Land and Building Department to enable them to take further action. There is some correspondence between the Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector. Ultimately, by letter dated April 15,1982 the Land Acquisition Collector called for a copy of the original application of the petitioner so that the particulars contained therein could be verified. There is some correspondence between the Land and Building Department and the Land Acquisition Collector. Ultimately, by letter dated April 15,1982 the Land Acquisition Collector called for a copy of the original application of the petitioner so that the particulars contained therein could be verified. ( 4 ) THE petitioner filed another application seeking allotment of developed residential plot in lieu of his land acquired under the scheme of large scale acquisition, development and disposal of land in Delhi. This was filed on or about May 22, 1982. Column 12 of the pro forma requires information being furnished whether any application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted earlier in respect of the specified land or any other land and if so, its number etc. vide which the application was acknowledged had to be furnished. Against this column, the petitioner stated "no". By a separate affidavit, the petitioner declared that the information given in the accompanied application dated May 22, 1982 by him is true to the best of his knowledge and nothing is false therein and no material facts have been concealed. The affidavit is duly attested by the Oath Commissioner Delhi on May 22, 1982. ( 5 ) THE fresh application was scrutinised in the Land and. Building Department when it transpired that the petitioner had applied earlier vide file No. F. 30 (3)8/79/landb/alt. It was opined that the affidavit received with the new application is false. A proposal was mooted for prosecution notice being issued to the petitioner. A show cause notice dated July 19, 1982 was issued to the petitioner. Reference was made to column 12 of the application wherein it was mentioned by the petitioner that no application for allotment of alternative plot was submitted earlier and that the application was supported by an affidavit filed along with the affidavit. The petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the fact of his having applied for alternative plot earlier had not been disclosed in the application which tantamounts to concealment of facts and hence misrepresentation of fact to a public servant. The petitioner was called upon to explain within 10 days of the issue of letter as to why prosecution be not launched against him. The petitioner gave his explanation in the reply dated August 6, 1982. The petitioner was called upon to explain within 10 days of the issue of letter as to why prosecution be not launched against him. The petitioner gave his explanation in the reply dated August 6, 1982. After considering the reply to the show cause notice, it was decided to reject the two applications of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot. This decision was communicated in the first impugned letter dated August 23, 1982. The petitioner filed a representation against the said decision of rejection of the two applications. It was considered and rejected and the rejection communicated by the second impugned letter dated November 5, 1982. ( 6 ) THE first submission of Shri O. P. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Shri C. B. Yadav, Deputy Director (Allotment) has no power-cum-authority or jurisdiction to reject the applications of the petitioner or to take any action in the matter. The contention is that he is not empowered to act on behalf of the Delhi Administration. In the counter- affidavit, it is pleaded that the applications of the petitioner were rejected by the higher authorities and not by the Deputy Director (Allotment ). Mr. R. K. Anand has produced the original file in which the decision was taken. ( 7 ) IN exercise of the powers conferred by Article 239 of the Constitution of India and S. 29 of the Delhi Administration Act, 1966, and all other powers enabling him in that behalf, and in supersession of all existing rules and orders on the subject, the President, by notification dated Sept. 7, 1966 made the rules called the Business of the Delhi Administration (Allocation) Rules, 1966. The entire business of the Delhi Administration relating to. inter alia, "acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land" was assigned to the Land and Building Department. Under the transaction of Government Business Rules, a Joint Secretary is empowered to transact business on behalf of the Government in the Land and Building Department. The decision to reject the applications of the petitioner is taken by a Joint Secretary in the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Administration. The impugned order only communicates the decision taken by the Government under the signatures of Deputy Director (Allotment) as the communication says"i am directed". The decision to reject the applications of the petitioner is taken by a Joint Secretary in the Land and Building Department of the Delhi Administration. The impugned order only communicates the decision taken by the Government under the signatures of Deputy Director (Allotment) as the communication says"i am directed". There is thus no merit in the first submission of the counsel ( 8 ) THE next submission of the petitioner is that no show cause notice was served upon the petitioner before rejecting the applications of the petitioner submitted for allotment of the alternative plot. It is urged that the impugned action of the respondents is violative of the rules of natural justice. As already noticed, by narration of the facts, the second application for allotment of a plot was received by the Delhi Administration. A show cause notice was issued on July 19, 1982 in which it was clearly stated that the petitioner had mentioned in column 12 of his application that no application for allotment of alternativeplot was submitted earlier and that the petitioner had also deposed in the affidavit filed along with the application that the information given in it is true and no material fact has been concealed. It was then pointed that the fact of the petitioner having applied for the allotment of alternative plot earlier had not been disclosed in the second application and this tantamounts to concealment of tact and hence misrepresentation of fact. The petitioner was called upon within 10 days of the issue of the letter though at that time the proposal was to launch prosecution against the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner to the said show cause notice dated July 19. 1979 is received and considered by the competent authority. Thus the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause as to why he did not disclose in second application the fact of having applied for allotment of alternative plot earlier. There is thus no merit in the second submission. ( 9 ) THE main submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in rejecting the applications of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot is arbitrary and thus without jurisdiction. There is thus no merit in the second submission. ( 9 ) THE main submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the action of the respondents in rejecting the applications of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot is arbitrary and thus without jurisdiction. It is urged that the petitioner under the scheme notified by the Government in the memorandum dated May 2, 1961 was entitled to the allotment of a developed plot as his land had been acquired as a result of acquisition proceedings for the planned development of Delhi. The counsel submits that the petitioner had clearly stated in his reply dated Aug. 5/6. 1982 that since he had not received any communication from the respondents for a period of 3 years, he had forgotton about the fact of his having filed an earlier application for allotment of an alternative plot, that he is an illiterate person and old man who does not keep good health and had got the earlier application by some other person and that due to over-sight and misunderstanding he wrongly mentioned in paragraph 12 that no previous application was moved. Shri R. K. Anand, the learned counsel for the Delhi Administration has produced the original file. The reply to the show cause notice received is duly considered by various officials dealing with the case of the petitioner. One view expressed was that the prosecution may not be launched but the applications of the petitioner for alternative plot be rejected. The noting portion also speaks of the reasons given by the petitioner and a proposal was that the show cause notice be vacated and the case be proceeded further. When the case was placed before the Joint Secretary, he ordered the rejection of the two applications of the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner received was again examined by the Joint Secretary. He ordered the rejection of the representation. There is a note also that the case of the petitioner has been rejected as per the policy in other cases of this type. ( 10 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi Administration, it is stated that had the Department not linked the two applications and brought the facts on the record the petitioner would have definitely obtained two plots for the land acquired by the Government. ( 10 ) IN the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi Administration, it is stated that had the Department not linked the two applications and brought the facts on the record the petitioner would have definitely obtained two plots for the land acquired by the Government. It is also slated that the petitioner with mala fide intention to obtain two plots again applied for allotment of alternative plot and with a mala fide intention concealed the facts in item No. 12 of prescribed pro forma. ( 11 ) IT was open to the Delhi Administration to consider and in fact it was considered whether the second application moved by the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot was due to over-sight or misunderstanding that he mentioned in para 12 of the second application that no previous application was made. It was tor the Delhi Administration to consider whether or not there was any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner to deceive or conceal the information in respect of the earlier application made to the Delhi Administration. The competent authority considered the answer to the show causenotice and decided to reject the two applications of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot It is common knowledge that under the various notifications, an area of about 60,000 acres had been acquired in Delhi for the planned development of Delhi. There are thousands of land owners who are covered under the scheme of allotment of alternative plot in lieu of acquired land. The pro formas have been prescribed which have to be filled in by the persons seeking allotment of developed residential plot in lieu of his land acquired under the scheme of large scale acquisition development and disposal of land in Delhi. The application is to be supported by a declaration on affidavit that there is no false statement made therein and no material facts have been concealed. The applications for allotment of alternative plots are being entertained for the last about 20 years from time to time. The application is to be supported by a declaration on affidavit that there is no false statement made therein and no material facts have been concealed. The applications for allotment of alternative plots are being entertained for the last about 20 years from time to time. If an applicant makes two or more applications and they are not linked by the Land Acquisition Collector or by the Land and Building Department, then the possibility cannot be ruled out that a person may be allotted more than one plot The stand of the Delhi Administration is that the petitioner would have definitely obtained two plots in lieu of his land acquired by the Government if the Department had not connected the two applications. The view taken by the Delhi Administration is a possible view. While exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit in appeal or reappraise the material before the Delhi Administration to come to a different conclusion, for the jurisdiction is not appellate. ( 12 ) THE counsel has relied upon the decision in CWP No. 1312/84 "smt. Ramo Devi v. Union of India", decided on Oct. 19, 1984. In that case, the application for allotment of alternative plot was rejected on the ground that the ownership of the late husband of the petitioner in that case was declared by the Revenue Assistant on Jan. 5, 1968 after the date of notification under S. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. This was contrary to the view held by this Court in "vaidraj Giri v. Union of India", CWP No. 591/82 that even a subsequent owner can get an alternative plot. Another reason was given that the late husband of the petitioner there had applied earlier vide his application dated Dec. 13, 1963 but the widow did not disclose in the second application. In that case, the view taken was that the Department was not entitled to treat the husband and wife as one person for the purposes of allotment as the widow was entitled to be treated on her own merit for the allotment of alternative plot as she was the owner of the land which was acquired by the Delhi Administration. That case does not advance the case of the petitioner. The second case relied upon in CWP 163/84 " Dharam Pal Singh v. Union of India", decided on October 19, 1984. That case does not advance the case of the petitioner. The second case relied upon in CWP 163/84 " Dharam Pal Singh v. Union of India", decided on October 19, 1984. The petitioner s father in that case had got a plot on his original application in respect of award No. 1269 and the son applied for allotment of an alternative plot against another land under award No. 1802. The father did not avail of the offer of the allotment of a plot on his original application. In these circumstances, the son was entitled to claim an alternative plot in lieu of the acquisition made by award No. 1802. This case also does not advance the case of the petitioner. ( 13 ) FOR the above rensons, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.