IFTIKHAR KAMIL Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia, amongst other reliefs, for quashing of public notices dated 15.10.2011 and 12.11.2011 issued by the respondent/DDA to auction plots No.C-32A, and C-32B, situated at Friends Colony, Delhi as being bad in law. The present case has a chequered history, relevant facts of which are taken note of herein below before dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioners that the properties of the father of petitioner No.1 were acquired by the Government, vide notification dated 11.8.1972, and as per the then prevalent policy, he was entitled to allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the acquisition, which was not allotted to him till the date of his death, i.e., 14.7.1976. On 15.4.1996, petitioner No.1 submitted an application for allotment of an alternative plot of land in lieu of the acquired properties of his father. On 31.5.1996, the petitioners were informed by the officials of the respondent/DDA about the allotment of a plot measuring 800 sq. yards on perpetual lease hold basis, being property bearing No.C-32, Friends Colony East, New Delhi. On 14.6.1996, as required by the respondent/DDA, the petitioners deposited a sum of Rs.18,00,000.00 with it. On 17.7.1996, the Deputy Director (L.A.) Residential, DDA, issued a letter to the petitioners informing them to take over possession of the plot after the registration of lease deed and that a handing over and taking over memo would be prepared on 26.07.1996 and given to the petitioners.

(3.) THE aforesaid writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed, vide order dated 2.3.2006 (Annexure P-7), wherein after taking note of the stand of both the parties, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that no relief in respect of the plot in question could be granted to the petitioners as it was a case of total fraud. It was further noted that in ordinary course, once DDA receives a recommendation from the Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Land and Building Deptt.) for allotment of an alternative residential plot, only then would the allotment of a plot be made by the Director (Land), DDA. But in the present case, the allotment was not made by the Director (Land), but by an Assistant Accounts Officer, whose letter of allotment was relied upon by the petitioners. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed with further directions to the Vice Chairman, DDA that he would consider refunding the amount deposited by the petitioner, and that in case he is of the opinion that the petitioners were a party to the fraud, the amount would not be refunded, but instead be transmitted to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.