H S GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Delhi Development Authority (for short, DDA) had come out with a scheme for allotment of plots in the Rohini area, North west Delhi known as Rohini Residential Scheme (1981 Registrants). Applications were invited from persons falling in the middle income group (MIG) having income in excess of Rs. 1,000.00 but less than Rs. 2,000.00 per month for allotment of plots measuring 60 sq. mtrs. The plots were offered @ Rs. 200.00 per sq. mtr. The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are the registrants under the said scheme. A priority list with respect to all the registrants under the said scheme was drawn. In the year 1991 a draw of lots was held by the DDA for the registrants under the said scheme. There were about five thousand plots to be allotted in Sectors 23 and 24 in the Rohini Residential Scheme. Soon thereafter about 3,000 allotment letters were issued. Letters to about 2,000 registrants remained to be issued. The petitioners in these cases belong to the category to which the allotment letters remained to be issued. It appears that the issuance of allotment letters to remaining registrants like the petitioners was suspended because the land owners whose land had been acquired for purposes of development and where the plots had been carved out which were being allotted, filed writ petitions in this Court and obtained stay orders. As a result of the stay orders, the DDA stopped issuing allotment letters to persons whose plots fell on such lands. The stay orders were vacated subsequently in about August, 1992. In the meanwhile the Government of India redetermined the cost of the land for purposes of allotment. In view of the increase in the cost of the land fixed by the Government of India, the DDA evolved a principle of calculating the cost of development charges at par with cost of living index rate which worked out to 16.62% p.a. On that basis the DDA worked out the cost of the plots to be allotted under the said Scheme @ Rs. 1,579.75 per sq. yard and issued letters of allotment to the petitioners on the basis of the re-calculated cost. The petitioners filed these writ petitions in this Court challenging the escalation of costs of plots on the basis of re-calculation by the DDA as aforesaid. Besides challenging the method of costing and the justification for escalation in cost, the petitioners also raised an argument of discrimination. The discrimination alleged by the petitioners is that they are similarly situated as those registrants in the 1981 Scheme who had received the letters of allotment in the first instance in the year 1991. While those registrants got their plots at a much lower price as applicable at that time, the petitioners who were similarly situated and in some cases enjoyed a higher position in the priority list of registrants, are being asked to pay more. Thus discrimination is the second argument raised on behalf of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions.

(2.) So far as the question of charging higher price and the basis of such a charge is concerned, the matter stands concluded by a judgment of the Supreme Court in DDA v. Kanwar Kumar Metha and Others, JT, 1996(9) SC 646.

(3.) On the question of discrimination, Mr. Ravinder Sethi, Senior Counsel for DDA submitted that no case of discrimination is made out in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The persons to whom allotment was made pursuant to the draw held in 1991 and the petitioners cannot be said to be similarly situated. After the draw of lots the DDA had started issuing letters of allotment to all the successful parties. The process of issuance of allotment letters had to be stopped for reasons beyond the control of the DDA because of stay orders obtained by the land owners whose land had been acquired and from which the plots which were being allotted had been carved out. It took some to get the stay orders vacated and due to this time log the factor of escalation of cost came in. Thus at best it could be said to be a case of petitioners being unfortunate inasmuch as the plots falling to their lot was subject matter of stay orders while those registrants who got the allotment letters earlier to the petitioners were fortunate enough that their plots were not subject matters of stays. The plots could be alloted to the registrants to whom the allotment letters were earlier issued because their plots were not subject matter of stay orders of Courts, while in respect of the plots allotted to the petitioners, there were stay orders at the instance of land owners who challenged the acquisition of lands. In these facts it cannot be said that the DDA has indulged in any discrimination. Whatever has happened was beyond the control of the respondent Authority and it cannot be blamed for the same. The petitioners cannot be said to be similarly situated as those to whom allotment letters were issued in 1991. For this reason we find no merit in the contention that the respondent practised any discrimination in the matter of allotment of plots or pricing of the plots allotted to registrants under the 1981 Scheme.