SHANTI DEVI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a writ of certioran and mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order calling for records of Plot No. 3, B-Block Local ShoppingCenter-I I, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi and directing respondent No. 1, the DelhiDevelopment Authority (for short the DDA) and No. 2, the Union of Indiarespectively not to allot public passage in front of petitioners' Plot No. 4 and ifalready allotted, quash the allotment; direct the aforesaid respondents and respondent No. 3, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, not to permit respondent Nos. 4and 5 to carry out any construction or raise any structure on the said public passageand in the basement beneath the public passage.

(2.) The issue involved would appear to be simple though arguments addressed would look rather complex. The dispute concerns a very small strip of landof the size of 8' x 20' leased to respondent No. 4 at a price, for him to construct a linkverandah for the use of the public in the shopping complex so that there is a wholelength of verandah in front of the shops in the complex. This disputed strip of landis of the size in length of the shop premises of respondent No. 4 though it would bein continuation of the verandah in front of the shop of the petitioners. The DDAallotted and gave the leasehold rights of this strip 'of land to respondent No. 4 at aprice calculated on certain basis with permission to have a basement underneath itwith stipulation that no construction even on the roof of the verandah would bethere, and that the verandah so constructed would be used as public passage. Boneof contention is perhaps the construction of the basement underneath this strip ofland, admeasuring 8' x 20', and on that account challenge is as to how could theDDA give leasehold rights of this strip to respondent No. 4 without there being apublic auction as per law. As to what is the infraction of law involved in the casewe will presently see. But it would at once appear to us that no one would bebenefited by buying this strip of land except respondent No. 4.

(3.) We may now advert to the circumstances leading to the filing of the presentwrit petition: