CHANDER Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was initially filed by 40 petitioners. The averments made in the writ petition were that their lands situated in the villages of Badli, Sahlbabad, Daulatpur, RaJapur, Samepur and Surehra Najafgarh were acquired by the respondent No.1 on different dates and . placed the disposal of respondent no.2 for planned development of Delhi under the Scheme of "Large Scale Acquisition, Development and disposal of land in Delhi 1961". Under this scheme, it was envisaged that the affected persons whose lands were acquired would be allotted alternate plots. Pursuant, to the acquisition, awards were made on different dates and compensation was paid to the owners/interested persons. Few years later respondent No.l sanctioned alternate plots to the petitioners. These sanctions were addressed to respondent No.2 directing it to allot developed plots of different sizes to the petitioners as per the sanction issued by respondent no.l from time to time. It is not necessary to state the grievance of all the petitioners inasmuch as by order dated 1/7/1999 in this writ petition, the petition was disposed of by recording that it was fully covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions, leading case being CwP No.1958/96 entitled Khazan Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors, decided on 28/10/1998 and directions in terms of the said decision were issued in this case also. However, the petitioner No.37 Shri TeJ Ram filed CM No.8087/99 for recalling of order dated 1/7/1999 qua him on the ground that the claim made by the petitioner No.37 was different and was not covered by the decision rendered in Khazan Singh's case. On this application order dated 21/1/2000 was passed issuing a clarification that the order dated 1/7/1999 will not apply to the petitioner No.37 and the petitioner would be treated to have been kept pending qua him. Therefore, this writ petition now concerns the case of the petitioner No.37 only.

(2.) The issues raised by the petition encompasses a controversy which is quite narrow. In his case the Delhi "Administration issued sanction letter dated 25/11/1985 addressed to Deputy Director (Res) i.e. respondent No.2 with request to allot the said petitioner a plot measuring 400 sq.yards in lieu of his land having been acquired. The respondent No.2 after a.gap of more than seven years issued allotment letter to the petitioner No.37 allotting Plot No.39, Sector 34, Pocket No.l5A measuring 330 sq.yards in Rohini Residential Scheme. A provisional rate of Rs.1,650.65 per.sq.mtrs. being the pre-determined rate notified by the Government of India, for the year 1992-93 was demanded. It is this rate which the petitioner No.37 is challenging in this writ petition on the ground that when respondent No.1 issued sanction letter dated 25/11/1985 the petitioner should be charged the rates for the plot notified for the year 1985-86. Simply because the DDA took more than seven years in ultimately making the allotment vide letter dated 18/1/1993 is. no ground to charge the rate prevalent in the year 1992-93 as respondent No.2 could not take advantage of its own wrong/slackness by acting belatedly and then demanding the rate to the prejudice of the petitioner. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner No.37 has relied upon the Judgment dated 15/3/1994 in the case Kure VS. Delhi Administration & Anr.(CW No. 4361/92). Relying upon the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Nand Vs UOI & oRS. Reported as AIR 1994 delhi 29. learned counsel further submitted that relevant date with reference to which premium at pro-determined rates would be chargeable from a person such allotment of the residential plot should be the date when the recommendation was made by the Delhi Administration to DDA for allotment.

(3.) On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No.2/DDA that merely from the letter dated 25/11/1985 by Delhi Administration to DDA, no right accrued to the petitioner No.37 as is clear from the endorsement on the said letter while sending copy of the letter to the petitioner No.37 wherein it was clearly stated that the allotment of alternate plot was subject to availability of plot with DDA and the letter did not carry any legal commitment for allotment. Learned counsel further submitted that on the basis of availability of developed plots draw was held on 21/12/1992 and as petitionerr No.37 was successful in the draw of lots, DDA issued allotment letter dated 18/1/1993 to him.