KHURSHEED JAHAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 is the widow while petitioners 2 to 4 are the children of late Abdul Sattar. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India case of the petitioners is that Abdul Sattar was the co-owner to the extent of th share in the land measuring 31 bighas and 19 biswas comprised in Khasra No. 687 in Village Wazipur and that land was acquired vide Award No. 15/72-73 dated June 19,1972. In view of the acquisition of land, petitioners were conveyed through letter No. F. 20 (106) 93 LAC/CE/1475 dated April 25,1994 (Annexure P-4) by the respondents in regard to allotment of V/Stall No. 2 measuring 9.34 sq. metres at CSC Rajdhani Enclave, Peetampura, on a premium of Rs. 2,53,600.00 . After adjustment of the amount deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,075.00 towards the balance premium amount was to be paid within 30 days from the date of issue of the letter. It is alleged that Rajdhani Enclave, Peetampura, is not a lucrative site and the amount of the premium demanded by the respondents is also exhorbitant. At the most respondents can charge premium at the rate prevailing at the time of acquisition of the land. Demand raised in the said letter dated April 25,1994 is, therefore, bad in the eye of law. It is prayed that by issue of a writ of mandamus respondents be directed to allot an alternative stall in South Delhi area and in case the allotment of aforesaid V / Stall No. 2 is continued the respondents be directed not to charge Rs. 2,50,075.00 .

(2.) In response to the show-cause notice respondents filed a joint reply on the affidavit of Ashma Manzer, DIR (CL) DDA. It is alleged that under the scheme framed by the DDA persons whose lands were acquired had been allotted shops for their livelihood at the reserve price. Petitioners had also been allotted V/Stall No. 2 measuring 9.34 sq. metres at Rajdhani Enclave, Peetampura, on the condition of their depositing Rs. 2,50,075.00 within the stipulated period. Disposal cost of the aforesaid stell was worked out in accordance with the approved pricing policy and the same is not exhorbitant, as alleged. It is alleged that as the petitioners failed to deposit the paid sum within the stipulated period, the allotment stood cancelled as per the rules. Petitioners made a request for allotment of a general shop in lieu of allotted vegetable shop, which was turned down as per policy.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties.