SHIV RAJ SINGH v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY — 1993 DIGILAW 417 (DEL)

D. P. WADHWA ( 1 ) BY this petition the petitioners, numbering seven, seek a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the first respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot plots to the petitioners in Wazirpur Phase IV, and to quash the draw of lots already held on 25 November 1991. A further direction is sought to D. D. A. directing it to draw the plots of the petitioners in terms of demand letters issued by the D. D. A. under which payments have already been made to D. D. A. There are three respondents. First respondent, as noted above, is D. D. A. , an authority constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957, established for the purpose of planned development of Delhi. It has to perform its functions as specified in that Act. The second respondent is Mr. Dharmender Sharma, Sub Divisional Magistrate, on the basis of whose report dated 30 April 1991 draw of lots of plots was confined to 482 persons excluding the petitioners and others. The third respondent is Mr. Shiv Charan Sheel, General Secretary, Sawan Park Jhuggi-Jhonpri Congress Committee (I), Delhi. ( 2 ) THE petitioners contend that D. D. A. prepared a scheme for the residents of Jhuggi-Jhonpris of Sawan Park existing in Khasra Nos. 646, 649 and 650 for their resettlement which scheme was approved by the Vice Chairman, D. D. A. , in 1985. A colony called the Wazirpur Phase IV was developed where plots measuring 32 square metres on perpetual leasehold basis were to be allotted to persons residing in Jhuggi-Jhonpris in Sawan Park. These persons are occupational weavers ("bunkars" a Hindi word ). Sawan Park, Delhi, was a known weavers colony. In the letter dated 17 May 1985 of the Deputy Director (CP), Delhi, the third respondent was informed that project had been approved by the Vice Chairman, D. D. A. , and the development of land in Wazirpur Phase IV was being taken very shortly. This was for allotment of land to bunkars in Wazirpur Phase IV. Then by another letter dated 9 October 1985 of the Director (CP), D. D. A. , the third respondent was asked to contact the Director (Lands and Management), D. D. A. , regarding the allotment of plots to weavers of Sawan Park complex. This was for allotment of land to bunkars in Wazirpur Phase IV. Then by another letter dated 9 October 1985 of the Director (CP), D. D. A. , the third respondent was asked to contact the Director (Lands and Management), D. D. A. , regarding the allotment of plots to weavers of Sawan Park complex. It was stated in this letter that it was Director (Lands and Management) who was dealing with the subject of issuing of allotment letters, premium of land and handing over possession of the same. Then by letter dated 15 January 1986 third respondent was asked to furnish authentic list of the persons who were holding the ration cards in Sawan Park complex so that further action in the matter could be taken by the D. D. A. By yet another letter dated 21 April 1986 of the D. D. A. the third respondent was told to direct the members of the third respondent in group of 50 to appear before the Deputy Director (Indl.) from 28 April 1986 onwards with their respective ration cards in original along with an attested photo copy and an affidavit to the effect that the member had not been allotted any plot by the D. D. A. or the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any other local authority in the Union Territory of Delhi. By letter dated 8 January 1988 of the Deputy Director (Indl), D. D. A. , third respondent as well as Chetan Dass, General Secretary, Sawan Park Jhuggi-Jhonpri, Sawan Park, and Sarwan Kumar, Sawan Park, Delhi, were informed that 650 demand letters had been prepared in respect of allottees whose papers were found to be in order. It was stated that rest of the allottees would be subsequently issued demand letters as and when their documents are complete in all respect. It was, however, mentioned that before the demand letters were issued the addressees may sponsor one responsible representative from each of their associations who would be present and would be required to sign on the copy of the demand letters in token of having identified the genuine allottee. It was stated that name of the representative to be sponsored should be intimated to the office of the Deputy Director (Indl) latest by 12 January 1988. It was stated that name of the representative to be sponsored should be intimated to the office of the Deputy Director (Indl) latest by 12 January 1988. The three addressees were also requested to attend the office of the Deputy Director (Indl) on Tuesday the 12 January 1988 between 2. 30 P. M. and 5. 00 P. M. in that connection. ( 3 ) THEN we find allotment letters were issued to the petitioners from 29 February 1988 to 12 September 1988 by the D. D. A. We may refer to contents of only one of such allotment letters as under :- " Sub: Payment to be made for allotment of plots. Sir/madam, I am directed to inform you that it has been decided to allot you a plot at Wazirpur Phase-IV in lieu of Sawan Park measuring 32 Sq. Mtr. on perpetual Lease hold rights basis. You are now advised to deposit the amount as detailed below by a demand draft/cash in favour of the DDA in any branch of the Central Bank of India mentioned in para 9 within week from the date of issue of this letter and submit 3rd copy of the Challan to this office. a) Total premium of 32 sq. mts. Rs. 15,000/- b) 1st instalment of premium. Rs. 3,000/- c) Cost of preparation of lease Rs. 45/- deed. Net amount payable within one Rs. 3,045/- week. 3. The above amount is subject to adjustment if any consequent to the requirement of layout plan/demarcation of site, fixation of rate etc. The demand is subject to revision according to the actual area handed over to the allottee. 4. The balance Rs. 12,000/- along with the interest shall be payable by you in four quarterly instalments. 5. Besides the above amount the ground rent upto date is also required to be paid by you separately at the time of execution of lease deed along with the Corporation duty on the transfer of immovable property shall be borne by you. 6. The allottee shall abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed. He will give an undertaking (along with the payment) to the effect that he will abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed and will pay Rs. 12,000/- balance premium plus interest. 7. 6. The allottee shall abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed. He will give an undertaking (along with the payment) to the effect that he will abide by the terms and conditions of the lease deed and will pay Rs. 12,000/- balance premium plus interest. 7. Please note that if the above payment is not made within the stipulated period, the offer of allotment will be treated as withdrawn. 8. In case of default, breach or non-compliance of any of the terms and conditions of allotment or mis-representation by the applicant, the allotment shall be concelled. 5. Branches of the Central Bank of India :- a) DDA Building, Vikas Minar, New Delhi. b) DDA Building, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. c) 20/15, Connaught Place, New Delhi. d) 2/14, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. e) 55, Madhuban, Nehru Place, New Delhi. f) 22-E, South Extension Part II, New Delhi g) Link House, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. h) Lawrance Road. i) B/29, Community Centre (near Super Bazar) Janak Puri, New Delhi. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Dy. Director (Indl.) D. D. A. Copy forwarded to the Accounts Officer (R), DDA, with reference to para-4. Dy. Director (Indl.) D. D. A. "it is not disputed that in terms of these letters the petitioners did make the initial payment of the premium and other charges. ( 4 ) THE petitioners also say that even thereafter the second respondent with the assistance of the third respondent made enquiries on 8 October 1990 and 9 october 1990 and also on 19 March 1991 when the particulars as given by the petitioners were verified and found to be in order by the second respondent. ( 5 ) D. D. A. took out a draw of lots only of 482 persons on 25 November 1991. Then the petitioners verified the list displayed outside the office of the D. D. A. they found their names missing and rather to their surprise found the names of outsiders and second allottees including that of the third respondent in the list. Petitioners say that no notice or opportunity had been given to them before deleting their names before the draw of lots nor any other reason was conveyed to them. Petitioners say that no notice or opportunity had been given to them before deleting their names before the draw of lots nor any other reason was conveyed to them. However, on enquiry the petitioners learnt that the second respondent had deleted the names of the petitioners during the enquiry made by him with the assistance of the third respondent. Petitioners say that since value of the plots in Wazirpur Phase IV appreciated, they believe that in preparing the second list there had been a horse-trading by inducting the names of outsiders therein. The petitioners have specified persons appearing at certain serial numbers in the list who had ration cards of the year 1988-90 and when the scheme was prepared they were not the residents of Sawan Park at all and they had got their ration cards just to get allotment of plots. The petitioners have given instances of three persons, which include the third respondent, who had already got allotment of plots and would be now second allottees. Then the petitioners have alleged that since the third respondent belonged to a certain political party he managed to get outsiders inducted by taking undue profits of illegal allotment and depriving genuine persons like the petitioners of their lawful right to get the plots allotted. As noted above, the petitioners alsoallege that in the list of 482 persons which had been displayed by D. D. A. many of them belonged to same category as that of the petitioners and there was no reason or occasion that petitioners should have been deprived from the draw of plots arbitrarily. They say whole action of the respondents is malafide, perverse and discriminatory and violative of the rights granted to the petitioners under Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 6 ) THOUGH the petitioners made payment in terms of the demand letters issued by the D. D. A. this amount has not been returned to them till this day and they have not been told as to why their names were not included in the draw of lot. They made various efforts that justice be done to them, but since there was no response from the respondents they per force filed this petition. They made various efforts that justice be done to them, but since there was no response from the respondents they per force filed this petition. When this petition came up for admission, by means of interim orders it was directed that delivery of possession to the allottees of the draw held on 25 November 1991 be not effected in case the possession had already not been delivered to the said allottees. It is the admitted case that no allottee of draw of lot of 25 November 1991 has been given possession of the plots. This interim order is continuing. ( 7 ) THE second respondent has not filed his return. The third respondent admits that initially a list of 948 persons was submitted to the D. D. A. On the basis of verification the list was reduced to 759 members and out of that 482 persons were found eligible in the first instance respecting whom draw of lot was held on 25 November 1991. Third respondent says that so far 759 plots had been carved out and after allotment of 482 plots the available plots for allotment number 277. He admits that the scheme for rehabilitation for the occupants of Khasra No. 646, 649 and 650, Sawan Park was approved in the year 1985. Then he asserts that in the first instance he had submitted a list of 1021 persons (which included the petitioners as well), but some of these persons who though actually living in Sawan Park were not holding ration cards as issue of ration cards was stopped by the Commissioner (Food and Supplies) in the year 1986. These persons though were bonafide residents of Sawan Park could not get ration cards but they were eligible for alternative allotment, so the third respondent contends. It will appear that these persons got ration cards in the years 1988 to 1990 and, thus, found themselves eligible for allotment of alternative plots in Wazirpur Phase IV. Third respondent did not counter the averment of the petitioners that he himself was not entitled to allotment of alternative plot as he had already got allotment of a plot bearing No. 16, J-2 Block, Wazirpur J. J. Colony. Third respondent did not counter the averment of the petitioners that he himself was not entitled to allotment of alternative plot as he had already got allotment of a plot bearing No. 16, J-2 Block, Wazirpur J. J. Colony. As a matter of fact, petitioners have also contended that third respondent as well as his father got two separate allotments in Wazirpur Phase IV though the third respondent is the only heir of his father and they all are living together. Petitiones have given instances of wrongful allotment to persons who were not eligible and they say it was done out of favouritism and for political. motives. Third respondent has not stated as to why names of the petitioners were left out though they were found eligible. Second respondent in his report also did not state specifically as to why the names of the petitioners were deleted. Admittedly, petitioners were not given any notice deleting their names from the original list and no cause has been shown as to why this was done to the prejudice of the petitioners. ( 8 ) IN the affidavit of the D. D. A. the stand taken is that certain portion of land in Khasra Nos. 646,649 and 650 was in occupation of weavers and that particular land was required for construction of a storm water drain and peripheral road. The total requirement was of the width of about 60 in L shape. The stand of D. D. A. is that the weavers who were being affected by the clearance operation of the area required for drain and/or road were only being offered alternative plots of 32 square metres on leasehold basis on concessional rate of Rs. 15,045/- for the entire plot along with interest charges. It is stated that the market rate of the alternative plot would be over Rs. 3 lakhs and that the condition precedent to alternative allotment was that the weavers who were being allotted alternative plots must be affected by the clearance operation. The D. D. A. then stated that the allotment of alternative plots was being done on a purely humanitarian ground and that since petitioners were not effected by the clearance operation there was no question of their being entitled to any alternative allotment. The D. D. A. then stated that the allotment of alternative plots was being done on a purely humanitarian ground and that since petitioners were not effected by the clearance operation there was no question of their being entitled to any alternative allotment. Any charge of discrimination between the petitioner and such other persons being given alternative allotment is denied and it is stated that those persons who had been given alternative allotment fell in a different category and as the petitioners were not being evicted there was no question of their being allotted any alternative allotment. Then it is stated that Sawan Park area was being represented by three associations and representatives of these three associations were asked to submit a list of occupants of the area which was required for the construction of drain and/or road, with supporting documents which included ration cards, voter s list etc. It is stated that on scrutiny of three lists 949 names were identified as being common in the three lists and out of that 914 were found to have requisite documentation and they were issued demand-cum-allotment letters. Then the case of the D. D. A. is that thereafter it was realised that not all the said 914 were squatting on the area required for construction of the drain and/or road, and that complaints were also received from certain residents of the area stating that some of the names existing in the list were bogus and not entitled to any alternative allotment. An enquiry was, thus, instituted to be done by the second respondent who submitted his report on 1 May 1991 clearing 482 eligible persons for alternative allotment having been found to be affected by the clearance operation and occupying the belt of land required for the construction of the drain and/or road. ( 9 ) THEN the petitioners filed their rejoinder. They have disputed the averments made by the second respondent as well as the D. D. A. They say the stand of the D. D. A. now is altogether different and is wrong as well. They filed an application (C. M- 3235/93) requiring the respondent D. D. A. to bring to the court whole record of the case. It was stated by the counsel for the D. D. A. that relevant files would be available as and when required. They filed an application (C. M- 3235/93) requiring the respondent D. D. A. to bring to the court whole record of the case. It was stated by the counsel for the D. D. A. that relevant files would be available as and when required. But no such record was brought to the court at the time of final arguments. There is certainly contradiction in the stand of the D. D. A. as reflected in the correspondence exchanged earlier with the third respondent and now that taken in the counter-affidavit. The petitioners have filed site plans of the jhuggi cluster in Sawan Park as well as of the l shape drain and/or road sought to be constructed in that area. They have also shown with red and green dots the occupants of jhuggis which would be affected by the construction thereof and though occupants of jhuggis shown in red dots have been included in the alleged list of 482 as affected persons, those in green dots have not been so included. The persons who are occupying the jhuggis with green dots are equally affected, and in fact these jhuggis with green dots are located within those jhuggis dipicted with red dots. There, thus, appears to be no reason as to why those jhuggi dwellers should not have been included in the draw of lot if the stand taken by D. D. A. is correct. No reason is forth coming from the respondent D. D. A. or even the third respondent as to why such discriminatory approach has been adopted. This site plan falsifies the whole of the stand of the D. D. A. itself. ( 10 ) IN his written submissions Mr. Chadha, learned counsel for the D. D. A. brought on record project report for weavers colony at Wazirpur Phase IV. A mere perusal of this report clearly shows that all the weavers in the colony Sawan Park belong to S. C. /s. T. /weaker sections of the society and the project was for settlement of all these weavers by giving them alternative allotment in Wazirpur Phase IV. The project of rehabilitation was not confined merely to those weavers having jhuggi-jhonpris falling in the l shape area where storm water drain and/ or road was to be constructed. The project of rehabilitation was not confined merely to those weavers having jhuggi-jhonpris falling in the l shape area where storm water drain and/ or road was to be constructed. Project report says that taking into account the fact that the weavers belong to weakers sections of the society and also taking into consideration a moral duty, over all it was beneficial to rehabilitate them so that weavers can carry out their profession smoothly. The project report says it was also part of 20-point programme to rehabilitate such weavers of the society and therefore their case was covered under the Government Policy. The stand now taken in the counter-affidavit of the D. D. A. that project was confined only to those weavers having jhuggi-jhonpris falling in the site of storm water drain and/or road is, therefore, not correct. Theproject also records that Sawan Park area was being represented by three associations and when they were separately asked to submit the list of the residents of the area with supporting documents including ration car, voters list, etc. , it was found on scrutiny that 949 names were common and these were, thus, identified. Out of these 949 it was stated that 914 were found to have requisite documentation and as such were issued demand-cum- allotment letters. The cost of development of each of the 32 sq. mtrs. plot which was to be allotted was worked out and it came to about Rs. 12,000/- taking into consideration the land at no profit no less basis. Petitioners, however, contend that 650 demand letters had been issued in respect of allottees whose papers were found to be in order. The cost of development of each of the 32 sq. mtrs. plot which was to be allotted was worked out and it came to about Rs. 12,000/- taking into consideration the land at no profit no less basis. Petitioners, however, contend that 650 demand letters had been issued in respect of allottees whose papers were found to be in order. Though in the affidavit of D. D. A. it has been stated that 914 persons were found to have requisite documentation and as such were issued demand-cum-allotment letters, but the fact remains that only 650 persons had actually been issued allotment letters by the D. D. A. ( 11 ) IT is, thus, clear to us that allotment of land in Wazirpur Phase IV was for the purpose of resettling the weavers of Sawan Park in the area of Wazirpur Phase IV and not on account of the reason as put forward by the D. D. A. No fault has been found with the averments of the petitioners that various persons have been included in the list of 482 persons who are not otherwise entitled to the alternative allotment of plots for the various reasons as mentioned by the petitioners. It is also contended before us that all those 482 persons should have been impleaded in the present writ petition. We do not think so. We are on the question of policy and drawing up the list and are not examining the case of any particular individual as such. During the course of pendency of this petition an application (C. M. 3131/92) was made by eleven persons who were among 482 allottees and they have stated that their names had been rightly included in the list of 482 persons as they were in possession of relevant documents to show their presence in Sawan Park in the year 1985 when the scheme was approved. A similar application (C. M. 5317/92) was also filed by five more applicants similarly situated. We granted hearing to them as well. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in his report took into consideration the following facts :- "i) That 949 residents of this cluster are proposed to be resettled in the Wazirpur Industrial Area, Phase-1v. The list was prepared in 1985. We granted hearing to them as well. ( 12 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, in his report took into consideration the following facts :- "i) That 949 residents of this cluster are proposed to be resettled in the Wazirpur Industrial Area, Phase-1v. The list was prepared in 1985. ii) That out of this 949 persons, 650 members have actually been given allotment letters by the D. D. A. till date. iii) That above two lists were made without any actual field verification. iv) That the local associations faulted with the above process of two counts. a) That the above lists includes people who are not bonafide residents of the Sawan Park Weavers Colony; and b) That this list does not take into account the bonafide claims of genuine residents of the cluster who were residing there before 1985. " ( 13 ) ON thesee basis second respondent says he made actual survey and a format of survey was devised in such a way so as to collect information about the persons residing in the cluster as on October 1990 and also giving evidence of their residence prior to 1985. For this purpose he required the residents during survey to lead any kind of evidence of 1983 and 1989. It is stated that survey was conducted in the month of October 1990 after making advance public announce- ments giving due notice to the jhuggi dwellers. It would, therefore, appear that it was a general notice and no individual notices were sent to the petitioners. The survey was not conducted by the second respondent personally though he says it was done under his supervision and various teams were constituted for the purpose of survey which was completed in three days. Without any further verification the D. D. A. accepted this report to the prejudice of the petitioners. No notice was given by D. D. A. as to why the report of the second respondent be not accepted and in fact the petitioners say they were quite unaware of the same. Second respondent is not a functionary of the D. D. A. and his report ipso facto could not have been accepted. No notice was given by D. D. A. as to why the report of the second respondent be not accepted and in fact the petitioners say they were quite unaware of the same. Second respondent is not a functionary of the D. D. A. and his report ipso facto could not have been accepted. No reasons are forthcoming in the counter-affidavit filed by the D. D. A. as to why the names of the petitioners stood deleted from the list of 482 persons prepared by the S. D. M. when they were similarly situated. D. D. A. has not given any answer to various discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners in the list prepared by the second respondent. We find there has been substance in the submission of Mr. Dutt, learned counsel for the petitioners, that extraneous considerations went into play in preparation of this list of 482 persons. The impugned action of the D. D. A. does not appear to us to be either just, fair or reasonable. It smacks of arbitrariness. ( 14 ) THUS, our conclusion is that the project for resettlement of weavers in Sawan Park was not confined to those weavers whose jhuggis were affected on account of construction of storm water drain/road passing through their jhuggis. As we have seen above, even we accept this contention of the D. D. A. to be correct, those jhuggi dwellers whose jhuggis were also affected by the construction of storm water drain/road were not included in the list of 482 persons. As a matter of fact the project report and the whole correspondence clearly show that all bona fide weavers residing in jhuggi-jhonpris in Sawan Park prior to 1985 were to be resettled. The names of the petitioners to whom allotment-cum-demand -letters had been issued and who made payment in terms thereof could not have been deleted without due notice to them, and as a matter of fact the respondents have. failed to point out as to why the petitioners were not entitled to the allotment as per the scheme and the allotment-cum-demand letters issued to them. ( 15 ) WE will, therefore, allow the writ petition and will quash the draw of lots held on 25 November 1991 for allotment of plots in Wazirpur Phase IV confined to 482 persons. failed to point out as to why the petitioners were not entitled to the allotment as per the scheme and the allotment-cum-demand letters issued to them. ( 15 ) WE will, therefore, allow the writ petition and will quash the draw of lots held on 25 November 1991 for allotment of plots in Wazirpur Phase IV confined to 482 persons. A mandamus is issued to the first respondent to make allotment in the first instance to 650 persons who had been issued allotment-cum-demand letters and who had made payment in terms thereof. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent to recheck that list after due notice to all those persons falling in that list of 650 persons on the basis of the scheme that it was for resettlement of all the weavers living in jhuggi-jhonpris in Sawan Park earlier to 1985 and that those weavers had not been allotted any plot by the D. D. A. , Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any other local authority in the Union Territory of Delhi. This list shall be finalised within a period of three months from today and allotment made within six months from today. Petitioners will be entitled to Costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/ -. Rule is made absolute.