DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SHASHI RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is next submitted that the plaintiff respondent does not have legal right in the matter and the lower appellate court was clearly in error in holding that the matter had been concluded by a contract or that the plaintiff- respondent had acquired any right in the land. In my opinion the right that the plaintiff- respondent possesses is to see that qua her the appellant acts according to law and the statutory scheme framed under Section 22 of the Development Act and the appropriate rules and directions of the Lt. Governor. The respondent is feeling aggrieved by the non-allotment of the polt of land in dispute and she certainly has a right to see that the appellant performs its duties in her favour according to law. equity and good conscience. I have found that the appellant was legally wrong in trying to sell these plots of land by public auction and its counsel has conceded to set this wrong right. The appellant was also wrong in treating the waiting list closed without any valid reason or any legal authority. I have also found that the appellant was wrong in picking and choosing persons out of the waiting list according to its own private notions and it must act according to law as pointed out by me. All these duties the appellant is bound to perform, and it is, therefore, the legal right of the plaintiff respondent to see that the appellant acts according to law qua her and qua the plot of land in dispute. In the suit the plaintiff respondent had claimed to be entitled to the allotment and I have found her legal rights on the basis of evidence on record and the admitted documents placed by the appellant Authority on the file.

(2.) Mr. Kirpal has cited Sukhdev Singh V. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Baghuvanshi & others, 1975 (1) S.L.R. 605 at para 12, and also Dr. Amarjit Singh V. The State of Punjab 1965 (1) S.L.R. 171, to support (he proposition that where a scheme is statutory, the party is bound to obey the same and even the administrative directions must be obeyed by the public authority. I hold that the plaintiff is legally entitled to maintain the suit and keep the appellant within the bounds of law. In fact the appellant had really determined to sell the land in dispute by public auction and it is only after the institution of the suit and even after the passing of the decree by the lower appellate court that the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly conceded that the appellant will not sell the plot of laud by public auction and will dispose it off in accordance with the scheme on the terms and conditions mentioned in Ex. D-l/C.

(3.) There is one aspect of the matter which needs more comments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent on 20th February, 1975 made a proposal without Prejudica to her rights and contentions that the plaintiff would be prepared to pay the current reserved price instead of the reserved price prevailing at the date of cause of action in respect of the plot of land in dispute or any other plot in the said scheme. The current price, I am told, is much higher than the price prevailing at the date of cause of action but the learned counsel for the appellant after taking considerable time to consider the matter, expressed inability of the appellant Authority to accept the same which has chosen to bear loss to its public funds rather than to allot the plot of land to the plaintiff-respondent, Mr. Kirpal, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent has suggested that the appellant and its officers are for some reasons interested in alloting the plot of land in dispute to the person at serial No. 28 in the waiting list and not to the plaintiff-respondent and that they have been feeling aggrieved and annoyed with the respondent who has filed the suit and drawn the appellant in litigation. Support for this suggestion of the respondent is found in the fact that the file and the original application of the plaintiff respondent is surprisingly not traceable while a letter of serial No. 28 has been filed which purported (to be written in April 1975 by B.R. Gupta in reply to letter dated 30th January, 1971) that Mr. R.N. Kakkar had directed allotment of some plot to Smt. Shashi Rani whose name was at Serial No. 41, and 42 whereas his name was at serial No 28. The appellant has taken the trouble to file a copy of the said letter though never sent a reply to the said person that he had withdrawn his earnest money long ago and so was not entitled to be considered. It is in deed strange how this gentleman came to know of the decision of Mr. Kakkar in 1975 and he woke up 4-5 years later after he had enjoyed an interest on the earnest money refund of which he had obtained. It is, however, not necessary for me to comment on the suggestion of Mr. Kirpal and I am unable to say whether or not the same is correct hut it is certainly true that the respondent has succeeded in the suit to prove the illegality and infirmities of the appellant in trying to sell the plot of land in dispute (out of the ones reserved for allotment by draw of lots) by public auction contrary to the directions of the Lt. Governor and the statutory scheme ; and it has also been shown to be in error in closing the waiting list arbitrarily though proceeding to make allotment evea after the closure. This can afford a ground for annoyance to the appellant. Perhaps, the officers of the appellant Authority are not annoyed and it has been suffering from some misapprehension about the correct legal position and I hope and trust that after the sams has been cleared by this judgement the appellant Authority will act according to law and justice and fair play without prejudice, favour and ill-will.