V.K. WAHI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the cancellation letters dated 18/7/2006 and 22/1/2007 in respect of the plot no. 1369, Pkt. A -1, Sector -30, measuring 32 sq. mtrs., which was allotted to the petitioner for residential purposes on 22/08/2004 vide file no. F45 (3052) 2004/RHN, under the Rohini Residential Scheme. Sh. R.N. Jha counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner overlooked a plot with the respondent at Rohini Scheme LIG in the year 1981 and deposited Rs. 2,000/ - which was to be deposited at the time of submission of he form for registration of the plot and to this effect the respondent issued registration receipt no. 824/81 dated 23/3/1981. The counsel further pointed out that the said plot was allotted to the petitioner after a long delay of 22 years for the reasons best known to the respondent. The counsel submitted that meanwhile, a scheme for retired persons came into operation by the respondent and therefore, the aforesaid plot was allotted under the Retirement Scheme. It was averred by the counsel that on 2/8/2004 petitioner received a demand letter from the respondent and according to the requirement the petitioner deposited the demanded amount with the respondent and to this effect the respondent issued a letter dated 21/9/2005, acknowledging the receipt of the said amount. The counsel submitted that after a long time of the deposit of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner received a letter dated 18/7/2006 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby intimation was given for cancellation of Allotment of LIG Plot bearing no. 1369, Pkt. A -1, Sector -30, under the Rohini Residential Scheme, giving the reason that since the wife of the petitioner is already an owner of a plot in Rohini, therefore, his allotment is cancelled. The counsel urged that the petitioner also wrote a letter to the Urban Development Minister for restoration of allotment of the plot but all in vain. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 12/12/2006 to the Vice Chairman of DDA for consideration of his case but it also did not serve the purpose of the petitioner. The counsel submitted that the respondent no. 2, thereafter issued a letter dated 22/1/2007, declining the request of the petitioner for restoration of the plot.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said cancellation letters dated 18/7/2006 and 22/1/2007 urged that firstly, the cancellation of the aforesaid plot is in clear violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner and further, there is a delay of 22 years in allotment of the plot, which should have been allotted in a reasonable time, but instead, was cancelled arbitrarily later on. The counsel urged that the petitioner retired in the year 1992 and due to delay in allotment of the said plot in Rohini, his wife purchased a 32 sq mtrs plot in Rohini from the market on 29/12/2000 on Power of Attorney, not directly allotted by DDA to the wife of the petitioner. The allotment was in the name of Sh. Ram Khiladi, s/o Sh. Ram Charan. The counsel urged that the said purchase of plot by the wife of the petitioner does not violate the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure in the column of 'eligibility'. The relevant portion of the brochure is reproduced below:

(3.) PER contra, Ms. Sangeeta Chandra counsel for the respondent contended that the petitioner had applied for the plot under LIG category in 1981 and was considered for allotment in various draws held from time to time upto 1989, but the petitioner remained unsuccessful. In 1989, a priority list was drawn on the basis of the computerized draw held in the presence of Panel Judge and the petitioner was assigned priority no. 24179. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent DDA, it has been stated that there was a reservation of 12% for retired/retiring persons and therefore, priority was given to the petitioner under RPS and as a result, petitioner was allotted LIG Plot bearing no. 1369, Pkt. A -1, Sector -30, under the Rohini Residential Scheme and a demand letter was issued in favour of the petitioner vide demand letter dated 2/8/2004 -6/8/2004. The petitioner was also required to submit requisite documents. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that after submission of the documents, as per the policy, the matter was further examined and it was found that Smt. Usha Wahi wife of the petitioner was already in possession of the property bearing no. 133, Pocket B -5, Sector -7, Rohini and this property is held by her on free hold basis as per conveyance deed executed on 29/ 12/2000. The allotment was in the name of Sh. Ram Khiladi, s/o Sh. Ram Charan and then it was purchased from him by Ms. Usha Wahi. On knowledge of the same, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 8/5/2006. It is also stated that since the petitioner concealed the fact of ownership of property by the wife of the petitioner in Rohini itself, the allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Competent Authority and the same was intimated to the petitioner vide office letter no. F -45 (3052) 04/LSB (Rohini) 31815 dated 18/7/2006. It is further averred that since the petitioner did not approach the respondent DDA with the clean hands, therefore, no ground is made out for issue of any writ, directions, order etc. for quashing the cancellation order. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that as per the brochure, the scheme was launched in 1981 as Rohini Residential Scheme under which, an area of 2497 hectares of land was to be developed and allotted to the registrants. Since, there were large numbers of registrants so they could not be accommodated in the area launched at the time of the original scheme and the respondent instead of backing out of the scheme, made efforts to acquire more land to adjust the left out registrants.