SATYA NARAIN BANSAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit praying for a decree for specific performance against the defendant. The facts giving rise to this suit are as follows :-

(2.) The plaintiff at the relevant time was a member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He applied for allotment of a plot of land on August 2, 1978. The defendant, Delhi Development Authority (for short DDA) decided to allot a plot measuring 200 sq. yds. In favour of plaintiff in Safdarjung Residential Scheme. This information was given to the plaintiff through a letter of the Deputy Director, DDA dated February, 1979 The letter also intimated that the exact number of the plot will be decided by draw of lots. On April 4. 1979 by a written communication the Deputy Director. DDA required the plaintiff to submit an affidavit to the effect that neither the plaintiff nor his spouse nor any of the dependent children own any house or plot in the Union Territory of Delhi and that they have not already been allotted a flat by the DDA nor any application for allotment of flat is pending with the DDA The plaintiff was also required to send details of the annual income for the assessment years 1975-76. 1976-77, and 1977-78. The plaintiff was also asked to sent a bank draft in the sum of Rs. 5000.00 in favour ofthe defendant as earnest money on or before April 20; 1979. Pursuant to the abovesaid communication, the plaintiff on April 18, 1979 sent the requisit affidavit alongwith a draft for a sum of Rs. 5000.00 to the defendant. On August 29, 1979 the plaintiff also submitted his income tax returns for the assessment years mentioned in the communication ofthe defendant dated April 4, 1979. By letter dated September 5, 1979 the defendant informed the plaintiff that it had been decided in held a draw of lots of residential plots on Safdarjung Scheme on September 10, 1979 The plaintiff was asked to attend the draw of lots on the said date. The draw of lots as scheduled was held on September 10, 1979 in which the plaintiff was alloted plot No. 216 in Block B-4, Safdarjung Development Area measuring 200 sq. yds. There after by letter dated April 27, 1982 of the Deputy Director, DDA the plaintiff was informed that it had been decided that he would be retaining plot no. B-4/216 in Safdarjung Development Area which was allotted to him through a draw of lots held on September 10, 1979. By this letter the plaintiff was also required to complete the other formalities including the payment of premium etc. for which an intimation was to be given to him. Inspite of the aforesaid communication, the defendant did not execute the necessary lease deed in favour ofthe plaintiff in respect of the said plot. The plaintiff in reply to a query ofthe defendant transmitted to it a certificate from the house tax department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi confirming that one ofthe properties of the petitioner, namely. No 6479, Katra Baryan, Fatehpuri, Delhi was a property which had been put in commercial from form the very beginning. On November 8, 1982 the defendant addressed a communication to the Executive Engineer (Building) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for confirmation that Katra Haryana was local commercial area and the building of the plaintiff was approved and recorded by the Corporation as one for commercial purposes The plaintiff not having revised any favourable response showing inclination ofthe defendant to execute the necessary lease dead in regard to the plant on question, instituted the present suit on September 30, 1985.

(3.) In the written statement the defendant has taken the stand that the plaintiff in his affidavit dated April 12. 1970 had confirmed that he owned a residential ancestral house located at 2191, Gali Hanuman Prasad, Delhi and as such he is not entitled to allotment of any plot in Delhi. It has also been brought out in the written statement that as per the policy no person is entitled to allotment of plot from the defendant if he. his wife/husband or any of their dependent relations own any residential house or plot in Delhi or Delhi Cantonment, and since the plaintiff failed to fulfil this precondition, the lease deed had not been executed in favour of the plaintiff. A further stand of the defendant is that the alleged allotment in favour of the plaintiff does not confer any right on him and no suit for specific performance is therefore, maintainable. Having regard to the pleading of the parties the following issues were framed :