DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. PURAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DDA') challenges the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 04.10.2004 allowing the WP (C) No. 747/2003 preferred by the respondent Puran Lal (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner had sought for quashing of the DDA's order cancelling his allotment of plot No. B -690, given of his bona fide occupancy of a jhuggi complex in Sawan Park. The brief facts necessary for deciding the present case are that the petitioner was a Jhuggi dweller in Sawan Park. The DDA and other authorities apparently drew a scheme for demolishing of Jhuggis and rehabilitation/re -settlement of its bona fides residents. The writ petitioner, apparently, was determined as one of the bona fide residents of a jhuggi cluster and allotted a plot. Some time in 2001, the DDA had sanctioned the building plan for construction of premises upon the plot. Subsequently, the DDA issued a show cause notice on 02.5.2002, proposing to cancel the allotment, alleging that the petitioner had suppressed that his name figured along with that of his father, (allottee of an alternative plot) in a common ration card and he was thus disentitled for allotment of an alternative plot. The petitioner had replied to the notice on 22.5.2002; nevertheless the DDA proceeded to issue an impugned order, cancelling the allotment and directing the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the plot to it.

(2.) THE basis for the DDA's decision is to be found in its show cause notice which, inter alia, stated as follows:

(3.) THE learned Single Judge in the impugned order noticed that the reply/response to the writ petitioner's reply dated 22.5.2002 had brought out the fact that the DDA conducted a survey at site to identify bona fide jhuggi dwellers, during which documents were verified at the spot. Ration cards were not the basis of allotment and there were numerous instances where despite a single ration card, more than one jhuggi was in possession of the family members; the ration card seized to be issued to residents of the jhuggi dwellers from 1986 and that such ration cards were issued only after 15.3.1990. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration the DDA's contention that petitioner's residence as well as that of his father were same in the ration card. At the same time, the learned Single Judge also noticed that notwithstanding issuance of one ration card, the petitioner and his father were residing separately in two jhuggis which was verified during inspection when their names were mentioned in the approved list. The learned Single Judge held that: