OM PARKASH GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Several Writ Petitions are concerned with the Ialotment of alternative sites at a reserve price to the petitioners who claim to be former occupants of the Motia Khan area which was dismantled and cleared in a scheme formulated by the Delhi Development Authority. The purpose of the scheme, which took a number of years, was to remove the metal and scrap dealers in Motia Khan area to a Loha Mandi which was developed in Naraina, this scheme is commonly referred to as the Naraina Ware-housing Scheme.

(2.) There were numerous problems regarding the allotment of new sites, particularly as to who were the persons who were to be alloted the sites, and also, some persons were offered allotments at Naraina while others were offered places at a far away place known as Rewari Line Industrial Area. A joint Writ Petition was filed being C.W. No. 317 of 1970, entitled M/s. Madan Iron Stores and v. Delhi Development Authority. This petition was decided on 13th October, 1970, by a Division Bench consisting of Hardy J., and Ansari J., (as they then were), who accepted 'the petition and directed the Authority to make a fresh allotment of plots in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment which is annexed as annexure 'A' to the petition.

(3.) It appears that the actual removal of persons in the Motia Khan area started in 1975, but some of the persons were not alloted plots and so there was another Writ Petition, being Suraj Mal and others v. The Delhi Development Authority and others, (C.W. No. 1121/75), arising from the fact that certain persons were not being allotted plots. This petition was decided by another Bench of this Court, viz, (Deshpande J. and Safeer J.) on the basis of certain statements, and eventually, the Delhi Development Authority passed a resolution on 11th October, 1977, regarding the manner in which the allotment was to be made. This is Annexure 'C' to the petition. This Resolution gives certain clarifications regarding the persons who were to be given alternative sites, and also, the rates that they were to be charged. At one time, the policy was that the persons who were removed and were paying damages should be given alternative allotments at a reserve price whereas those who were not assessed to damages should be given the allotments at the average-auction rate. The new policy was to subdivide these two categories further by re-classifying the persons who were not paying the damages. These new categories were- (a) persons against whom proceedings were pending for assessment of damages but no final orders had been passed, and (b) those against whom no such proceedings were initiated although they were in fact doing business in Motia Khan and were occupation there. After analying all the facts relating to the categories, the Resolution was as follows : RESOLUTION