LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI Vs. PRAMOD KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed impugning the order of the learned Single Judge. We have perused the impugned order and heard learned counsel for both the parties. Few admitted facts which are that the 25% of the bid amount at the fall of hammer i.e. Rs. 8 lakhs was deposited by the respondent and on 27th November, 2002 the appellant DDA informed the respondent that the bid was confirmed and the respondent should deposit the balance bid amount. However, the respondent after the visit found trees on the plot and in view of the fact that there is a prohibition on the removal of the trees in view of the Forest Act, 1980, made a representation to the appellant to remove the trees and it has been rightly observed by the learned Single Judge that thereafter started the story of procedural and bureaucratic delays. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the impugned order are very relevant, therefore, we would like to reproduce the same:-

(2.) From the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, it is manifestly clear that as a matter of fact the appellant ought not to have carved out a plot, on the area, which was meant for green land and in the event of their choosing to carve out a plot on the same area, they should have taken the permission prior in hand from the Tree Officer for removal of the trees so that the site can be used as a plot by the intending purchaser in the auction. Nothing has been done, as has been observed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. As a matter of fact the learned Single Judge after delivering a finding that the fault lies with the appellant as before putting the plot in auction the appellant ought to have got a clear mandate to change the layout, had disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. The learned Single Judge has also imposed a costs of Rs. 25,000/- against the appellant. On the very first hearing on 24th March, 2006 at the time of admission of appeal, an ex parte order staying the impugned judgment was passed by this Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that as a matter of fact the learned Single Judge after placing the blame on the appellant has given certain options to the appellant. One of the options given to the appellant was that if the Conservator of Forests and the appellant are not able to resolve the controversy with regard to the cutting of the trees and necessary permission thereof is not received by the appellant, then, within six weeks from the date of the judgment, the appellant would allot some other plot to the respondent in Prashant Vihar. The plot would be admeasruing 124 sq.mts or near about and will not be, in any case, would be less than 120 sq.mts. The allotment would be at the same price as was the auction bid. If the plot to be allotted is upto 150 sq.mts, additional premium would be paid by the respondent at the per square meter costs as per auction bid.

(3.) We have been told during the course of hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant that against the order of Tree Officer an appeal has been filed by the DDA before the Appellate Authority under the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994 and the appeal is still lying with the Chief Conservator of Forests. We issue direction to the Chief Conservator of Forests to dispose of the appeal within four weeks. However, the outcome of the appeal will not come in the way of the implementation of the direction of the learned Single Judge. In case, after four weeks, if the appeal is decided against the appellant, the appellant will implement the direction as contained in the impugned order by providing the alternative plot to the respondent in terms of the said order within six weeks from the date of this order. In the event of appellant succeeding in the appeal, the appellant will hand over possession of the plot after removing the trees at the same price as was the auction bid within the same period of six weeks from today. We further direct that the respondent be compensated with the costs, which have been granted by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition.