DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHIVRAJ SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. CM No. 2520/2004 stands disposed of. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned single Judge in CWP No. 488/95 dated 7.11.2003 giving a specific site for allotment at Alaknanda to the writ petitioners and the same is challenged by the Delhi Development Authority on the ground that the DDA is required to allot a plot only in a zone wherein a person is operating petrol pump in case of resitement and that too by a draw of lots. It is submitted that since in the instant case the writ petitioners were operating in a different zone, namely, north west zone, they were entitled to get a petrol pump site only in north west zone. It is required to be noted that this is a policy which came into force in the year 1995.

(2.) So far as the present case is concerned, it is a case of 1986. In view of the fact that a flyover was constructed the writ petitioners were required to be shifted. It is not anybody's case that the writ petitioners are not entitled to get a site, but the only dispute is with regard to the particular site in Alaknanda.

(3.) It is required to be noted that the learned single Judge has considered the various aspects of the matter while giving the particular site to the writ petitioners. We would like to reproduce the following paragraphs from the impugned judgment:- 16. (4) Joint Secretary (V) asked DDA DDA representative to come up with a concrete proposal within next 10 days so that the committee is in a position to advise the Hon'ble Court before the next date of hearing. He asked DDA representative to submit their findings on removal of encroachment from Pitampura site and also consider Mandakini site for allotment as a special case since the case pertains to a 20 years old period when the present policy of allotment of sites by draw of lots was not applicable. Considering all above DDA should submit their plan within next 10 days. 17.This meeting was followed up again with a letter dated 11.03.2003 of the Joint Secretary of respondent No.1 to the Vice-Chairman, DDA informing that during the meeting held on 07.03.2003 in the Ministry of Petroleum, the concerned Officer of DDA had informed that the decision to offer either of two sites for resitement, i.e. One at Mandakini (Alaknanda) and the other at Pitam Pura shall be communicated within 10 days. 19 ... ... ... This affidavit was filed and it states that as per the allocation of business rules of the Central Government, the Ministry of Urban Development is a Nodal Ministry and is competent to decide on the issue of allocation and, thus, the said respondent was in agreement with the stand taken by the Ministry of Urban Development. 27. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and find it rather unfortunate that the respondent authorities have not been able to resolve the matter in issue despite various opportunities granted for the said purpose. The matter was even directed to be considered by a calling a meeting of all the parties in view of the conflicting stands of the respondents. ? 28. ... ... ... Though respondent No.3 IOC justified the said allotment, respondent No.4 BPCL filed an affidavit stating that the site allotted to respondent No.3 IOC was not the same site included in the Marketing Plan of 1988-93 to be allotted to respondent No.3 IOC. In this behalf, it has been stated that after 41 sites available under the said plan, 24 sites were allotted to respondent No.3 IOC and 8 to respondent No.4 BPCL. It has been stated that these fresh allotments cannot be confused with the resitement cases, which arise on account of various causes. ? 33. I find force in the contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the case of the petitioners for resitement, which was approved in 1989 and for which no alternative site was made available over a period of 6 years till the new policy came into being, has to be treated on a separate and different footing. ?