Full Judgment Text
27
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8525/2015
ROHINI RESIDENTIAL
SCHEME 1981 ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Advocate with
Mr. Udit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
th
% Date of Decision : 11 September, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM Appl. 18368/2015 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 8525/2015
Allowed, subjet to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 & CM Appl. 18369/2015
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Demand-cum-
Allotment letter issued to members of the petitioner-association who are
allottees under the Rohini Residential Scheme 1981.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-association that levying of pre-
determined rates for the year 2014-2015 in the Demand-cum-Allotment
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 1 of 5
letter for the plots booked in 1981 is arbitrary and against various statements
made by DDA in Courts.
3. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned counsel for petitioner-association states
that the members of petitioner-association are entitled to get plots under the
1981 Scheme at the prices agreed to under the terms of the booking in 1981.
According to him, today’s demand is 115 times higher than the assured rate
and the said action of the DDA is discriminatory as about 52,000 other
allottees have been allotted bigger plots at lower rates.
4. Mr. Khanna further states that respondent-DDA diverted the land
earmarked in the 1981 Scheme for its other projects which resulted in delay
of more than three decades in allotment inspite of protracted litigation. He
states that the allottees cannot be made to suffer due to DDA’s manipulation
and inefficiency.
5. Mr. Khanna also contends that DDA could not have unilaterally
st
reduced the size of the plots vide Public Notice dated 01 November, 1999
without taking approval from the Central Government as required under the
Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and without giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the allottees.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for respondent-
DDA states that as the present petition is accompanied by a stay application,
the petition itself is not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court’s order
th
dated 10 March, 2015 passed in SLP (C) 16385-16388/2012, Rahul
Gupta vs. Delhi Devevelopment Authority . The portion of the order relied
upon by Mr. Birbal is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 2 of 5
For the same objective, as has been noticed in the
foregoing paragraph, we consider it just and appropriate to
direct that no Court other than this Court, shall entertain any
applicator for grant of interim directions with reference to the
above allotments or execution of the works. If and when an
interim direction is required, the aggrieved party who
approaches a Court of competent jurisdiction, would be
relegated to this Court. The concerned party would make such
prayer, through an interlocutory application.....”
7. Mr. Birbal also points out that the petitioner-association has been
registered only in July, 2015 and even the names of its members have not
been disclosed in the present petition. He states that if notice is issued in the
present petition, then the principle of lis pendens would be attracted and title
of some of the allottees under the Scheme would also get clouded which
they may not like.
8. Mr. Birbal submits that reduction in the size of the plots was done in
pursuance to the directions issued by the Central Government, Ministry of
Urban Development. He also states that DDA’s action of reducing the size
of plots has already been upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors. vs. Delhi Development
Authority & Ors., 2005 (80) DRJ 699.
9. Mr. Birbal also submits that the Supreme Court in Delhi Development
Authority vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1995 SC 1 has held that the
price or rate prevailing on the date of issuance of the letter of allotment is
alone to be taken into consideration and not the price prevailing on the date
of issuance of the Brochure or the floating of the Scheme.
10. At the stage of rejoinder, Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for petitioner
has handed over an affidavit enclosing the list of members of the petitioner-
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 3 of 5
association. The same is taken on record.
11. Mr. Khanna submits that this Court while deciding the case of Major
General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors. (supra) has not taken into
account certain documents and facts which have now been placed on record.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the
opinion that in view of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors (supra), it is not open to
the petitioner in the present proceedings to challenge the reduction of size of
the plots inasmuch as the said judgment had been passed ten years back and
has attained finality. In any event, being a Coordinate Bench, it is not open
to this Court to go behind the judgment and order of another learned Single
Judge. Consequently, the challenge with regard to the reduction of size of
plots is rejected.
13. The demand issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioner-
association can only be decided after a counter affidavit is filed. However,
this Court is of the view that if any interim order is passed in the present
proceedings, it would delay the project even further. Consequently, the
prayer for interim relief is declined.
14. Accordingly, issue notice only with regard to rate/demand in the writ
petition.
15. Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-DDA. He prays for and is permitted to file a counter affidavit
within a period of six weeks. The respondent is permitted to take all its
preliminary objections in the counter affidavit to be filed by it. The same
shall be decided at the stage of hearing of the writ petition. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 4 of 5
16. It is clarified that there is no interim order passed by this Court and all
the allottees of the Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 shall pay amounts in
accordance with the impugned Demand-cum-Allotment letter.
17. In the event, a member of the petitioner-association does not pay in
accordance with the Demand-cum-Allotment letter or does not meet the
eligibility condition, it shall be open to respondent-DDA to cancel the
allotment. However, it is clarified that such orders shall be subject to final
order to be passed in the present writ petition.
th
18. List the matter on 04 December, 2015.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
js
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 5 of 5
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8525/2015
ROHINI RESIDENTIAL
SCHEME 1981 ASSOCIATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Advocate with
Mr. Udit Kumar Chaturvedi, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate with
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate
th
% Date of Decision : 11 September, 2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
CM Appl. 18368/2015 (for exemption) in W.P.(C) 8525/2015
Allowed, subjet to just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 & CM Appl. 18369/2015
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the Demand-cum-
Allotment letter issued to members of the petitioner-association who are
allottees under the Rohini Residential Scheme 1981.
2. It is the case of the petitioner-association that levying of pre-
determined rates for the year 2014-2015 in the Demand-cum-Allotment
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 1 of 5
letter for the plots booked in 1981 is arbitrary and against various statements
made by DDA in Courts.
3. Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned counsel for petitioner-association states
that the members of petitioner-association are entitled to get plots under the
1981 Scheme at the prices agreed to under the terms of the booking in 1981.
According to him, today’s demand is 115 times higher than the assured rate
and the said action of the DDA is discriminatory as about 52,000 other
allottees have been allotted bigger plots at lower rates.
4. Mr. Khanna further states that respondent-DDA diverted the land
earmarked in the 1981 Scheme for its other projects which resulted in delay
of more than three decades in allotment inspite of protracted litigation. He
states that the allottees cannot be made to suffer due to DDA’s manipulation
and inefficiency.
5. Mr. Khanna also contends that DDA could not have unilaterally
st
reduced the size of the plots vide Public Notice dated 01 November, 1999
without taking approval from the Central Government as required under the
Delhi Development Authority Act, 1957 and without giving reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the allottees.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel for respondent-
DDA states that as the present petition is accompanied by a stay application,
the petition itself is not maintainable in view of the Supreme Court’s order
th
dated 10 March, 2015 passed in SLP (C) 16385-16388/2012, Rahul
Gupta vs. Delhi Devevelopment Authority . The portion of the order relied
upon by Mr. Birbal is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ xxx xxx xxx
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 2 of 5
For the same objective, as has been noticed in the
foregoing paragraph, we consider it just and appropriate to
direct that no Court other than this Court, shall entertain any
applicator for grant of interim directions with reference to the
above allotments or execution of the works. If and when an
interim direction is required, the aggrieved party who
approaches a Court of competent jurisdiction, would be
relegated to this Court. The concerned party would make such
prayer, through an interlocutory application.....”
7. Mr. Birbal also points out that the petitioner-association has been
registered only in July, 2015 and even the names of its members have not
been disclosed in the present petition. He states that if notice is issued in the
present petition, then the principle of lis pendens would be attracted and title
of some of the allottees under the Scheme would also get clouded which
they may not like.
8. Mr. Birbal submits that reduction in the size of the plots was done in
pursuance to the directions issued by the Central Government, Ministry of
Urban Development. He also states that DDA’s action of reducing the size
of plots has already been upheld by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors. vs. Delhi Development
Authority & Ors., 2005 (80) DRJ 699.
9. Mr. Birbal also submits that the Supreme Court in Delhi Development
Authority vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, AIR 1995 SC 1 has held that the
price or rate prevailing on the date of issuance of the letter of allotment is
alone to be taken into consideration and not the price prevailing on the date
of issuance of the Brochure or the floating of the Scheme.
10. At the stage of rejoinder, Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for petitioner
has handed over an affidavit enclosing the list of members of the petitioner-
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 3 of 5
association. The same is taken on record.
11. Mr. Khanna submits that this Court while deciding the case of Major
General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors. (supra) has not taken into
account certain documents and facts which have now been placed on record.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the
opinion that in view of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Major General Pradeep Kumar Mahajan & Ors (supra), it is not open to
the petitioner in the present proceedings to challenge the reduction of size of
the plots inasmuch as the said judgment had been passed ten years back and
has attained finality. In any event, being a Coordinate Bench, it is not open
to this Court to go behind the judgment and order of another learned Single
Judge. Consequently, the challenge with regard to the reduction of size of
plots is rejected.
13. The demand issue raised by the learned counsel for petitioner-
association can only be decided after a counter affidavit is filed. However,
this Court is of the view that if any interim order is passed in the present
proceedings, it would delay the project even further. Consequently, the
prayer for interim relief is declined.
14. Accordingly, issue notice only with regard to rate/demand in the writ
petition.
15. Mr. Arun Birbal, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of
respondent-DDA. He prays for and is permitted to file a counter affidavit
within a period of six weeks. The respondent is permitted to take all its
preliminary objections in the counter affidavit to be filed by it. The same
shall be decided at the stage of hearing of the writ petition. Rejoinder
affidavit, if any, be filed before the next date of hearing.
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 4 of 5
16. It is clarified that there is no interim order passed by this Court and all
the allottees of the Rohini Residential Scheme 1981 shall pay amounts in
accordance with the impugned Demand-cum-Allotment letter.
17. In the event, a member of the petitioner-association does not pay in
accordance with the Demand-cum-Allotment letter or does not meet the
eligibility condition, it shall be open to respondent-DDA to cancel the
allotment. However, it is clarified that such orders shall be subject to final
order to be passed in the present writ petition.
th
18. List the matter on 04 December, 2015.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
js
W.P.(C) 8525/2015 Page 5 of 5