KURE Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has sought allotment of a developed plot of the size of 400 square metres at the rates prevalent in the year 1985-86. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that the offer byletter dated 1 November 1992 (page 17, the date wrongly written as 20.4.90) by the respondent Delhi Development Authority bemodified both in regard to the area and the rate offered, and that the petitioner be offered rate prevailing in 1985-86 respecting semi-developed plots. However, we find that in this letter dated I November 1992 the petitioner has been offered a plot of land measuring 256.25 square metres on perpetual leasehold basis in Rohini Residential Scheme and it is stated that the size of plot measuring 400 square metres which was earlier allotted to the petitioner was not available. The petitioner has been asked to pay price of this plot at the rate of Rs. 1650.65 per square metre. A Full Bench of this Court in Ranwand v. Union of India and others, 1993 (26) DRJ 594 AIR 1994 Delhi 29, has held that an individual whose land was acquired did not have an absolute right to the allotment of alternative plot of land for residential purposes, and that such a person was only eligible to be considered for allotment of a plot and subject to certain conditions, It was furthe held that premium shall be chargeable from such a person at the pre-determined rates prevailing on the date when the offer was made to him by the D.D.A. for allotment of specific plot of land in a particular area/zone under the D.D.A.(Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules. It was also mentioned in this judgment that it was not pointed out that there was any inaction or delay on the part of the D.D.A. in the allotment of the land. Para 39 of the judgment is relevant and may be reproduced as under:- "In the present case, there are no allegations of mala fides nor any motive has been attributed to the D.D.A. or to any of its officers for causing delay in development of the land or in allotment of the plot. The allegations of delay are made in vague in general terms. In the absence of any specific pleading or other material on record, no fault can be found with tlie D.D.A. on this score. The D.D.A. has called upon the petitioner to pay premium for the plot at the same rate that is being uniformly charged from all other similarly placed persons. It is not as if the D.D.A. has made any allotment earlier to the others, or that in dealing with the claim of the petitioner there is delay. In these circumstances, the question of inaction or delay on the part of the respondents does not arise, and the principle that no party can take advantage of its own wrong is not applicable. "

(2.) It is contended by Mr. Juneja tliat one Budh Ram, whose land has also been acquired by the same award under the Land Acquisition Act like tliat of the petitioner, has been allotted a plot of land measuring 334.54sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 419.00 persq. metre. The petitioner in this case has, thus, given a specific instance where he says he has been discriminated against. We find in this case counter-affidavit lias not been filed and the pleas raised by the petitioner have not been controverted. The case of Budh Ram and that of the petitioner would appear to be same in all respects. In the case of Budh Rani a letter was written on 4 February 1985 by tlie Delhi Administration to tlie respondent-D.D.A. to allot him a plot of land measuring 400 sq. yds. In pursuance of that Budh Ram was allotted residential plot measuring 334.54 sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 419.00 per sq. metre by letter dated 21 December 1988 of the D.D.A., the plot being No. 91, Block No. H-4/5, Pitam Pure Scheme, New Delhi. In the case of the petitioner, a letter was written by Delhi Administration on 29 July 1985 to the D.D.A. for allotment of a plot measuring 400 sq. metres to the petitioner. The petitioner was, however, informed by letter dated 20 April 1990 that recommendation has been made for allotment of alternative plot of land measuring 400 sq. metres to him on perpetual leasehold basis. Then came the impugned letter dated I November 1992 whereby the petitioner has been informed that a plot measuring 256.25 sq. metres was being offered to him on perpetual leasehold basis in Rohini Residential Scheme at the rate of Rs. 1650.65 per sq. metre. Mr. Juneja has contended that there could be no reasons as to why the two persons similarly situated should be so discriminated tliat one has been allotted a plot of land measuring 334.54sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 419.00 per sq. metre and the other aplot of land measuring 256.25 sq. metres at the rate of Rs. 1650.65 per sq. metre. His plea appears to us to he well founded and to that extent we find that this case is not covered by the aforesaid Fill Bench decision.

(3.) Accordingly, we allow the petition and issue a writ of mandamus requiring the respondent-D.D.A. to charge from the petitioner price of the land at the rate prevalent in 1988 when plot of land was allotted to Budh Ram, the rate, of course, should be of Rohini Residential Scheme where the petitioner has been offered plot No. 18, Block A, Sector 19 are unrepresented, there will be no order as to costs.