Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7838/2006
RAKESH CHANDRA DUGGAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
M.C.D. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate for MCD.
Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Advocate for DJB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 05.05.2008
1. The petitioner was an employee of Water and Sewerage Department
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He joined the said department of
st
Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 21 October, 1981 and continued to work
there till 1998. In 1998, Delhi Jal Board was formed and the petitioner was
transferred to the said Board with the MCD no longer looking after water
and sewerage in Delhi.
st
2. On 1 December, 2000, the petitioner was allotted flat No. G-63,
Type-II at Dhakka Colony, Delhi vide Office Order No. 164. The
nd
possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner on 2 December,
2000 by JE(Works) Ward No. 116, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Possession letter/slip issued by JE(Works), MCD has been filed on record.
3. It is apparent that there was some dispute between the Delhi Jal
Board and Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the question of allotment and
occupation of flats by their employees. It is the case of the petitioner that
there were 73 properties in Delhi which were under exchange and mutual
adjustment between Delhi Jal Board and the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi. The problem had arisen because several employees of the Delhi Jal
Board were earlier employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It
appears that on 17 April 2002, the petitioner and two others were sought to
be evicted from the flats in their occupation at Dhakka Colony. The
th
occupants gave an undertaking on 17 April, 2002, that they should be
given ten days’ time on humanitarian grounds and undertook that within the
said period, the Delhi Jal Board would provide alternative flats to Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in lieu of the said flats, failing which they would have
no objection in handing over vacant and physical possession of the said
rd
flats to Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On 23 April 2002, the Assistant
Commissioner (L&E) under the Delhi Jal Board wrote to Additional
Commissioner (Land & Estate Department) of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, confirming that as flat no. G-63 had been allotted to the petitioner a
suitable flat in exchange would be allotted to the Municipal Corporation of
th
Delhi. Thereafter on 17 May, 2002, Delhi Jal Board wrote a letter to
Municipal Corporation of Delhi agreeing to mutual exchange of flats at
Pahari Dheeraj Water Tank, Ahata Kedara in lieu of the flats that had been
allotted to Delhi Jal Board employees, including the petitioner.
th
4. After 17 May, 2002, MCD and Delhi Jal Board became quiet and no
rd
further action was taken. After a gap of about three years, on 3 May,
2006 staff members of MCD came to the flat in question and forcibly
evicted the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the respondent- Municipal
Corporation of Delhi that no eviction decree or an order under the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 had been
passed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was thrown on the road with
all his belongings resulting in inconvenience and harassment to the
petitioner, his wife, children and aged mother. It is stated that the
petitioner’s mother was put through with such humiliation and ill treatment
and she suffered a stroke and was admitted in a hospital.
5. Respondent-MCD in their counter affidavit have admitted that the
petitioner was originally an employee of MCD but ceased to be their
employee after enactment of Delhi Water Board Act, 1998. It is further
stated that employees transferred to the Water Board were not eligible for
regularization of municipal accommodation. Reference in this regard is to
th
be made to the circular issued by Commissioner, MCD dated 24
September, 2001. I may note here that the respondent No. 1-MCD had
themselves agreed to the allotment of the flat to the petitioner with the
nd
JE(Works) Ward No. 116 handing over possession of the same on 2
December, 2000, which is after the enactment of Water Board Act, 1998.
6. Another allegation made in the counter affidavit is that the original
allotment of the flat in question was made to Mr. Brahm Dutt Duggal, father
th
of the petitioner, who had retired on 28 February, 1990. Delhi Jal Board,
however, in their counter affidavit has clarified that the petitioner was given
benefit of policy of father and son relationship and accordingly the allotment
of flat in favour of the petitioner was approved. It is also stated that the
rd
MCD was informed about this fact on 23 April, 2002. The said respondent
had requested MCD for inter pool exchange arrangement in respect of the
th
said flat. The said letter dated 17 May, 2002 was written after the
th
petitioner had already given an undertaking dated 17 April, 2002 to the
MCD. In the said undertaking, the petitioner had agreed that within ten
days alternative flat would be provided to MCD by Delhi Jal Board or he
shall vacate the premises. Offer of alternative flat was made to MCD by
th
Delhi Jal Board on 17 May, 2002.
7. It is apparent that the MCD has acted illegally and taken law in their
own hands by forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the flat in question
th
on 26 February, 2006. Procedure prescribed by law was not followed.
th
MCD has not referred to any correspondence between 17 May, 2002 till
rd
3 May, 2006. It is an admitted case that no eviction decree has been
passed and no proceedings were initiated under Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that eviction was done pursuant to the order of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No. 17454/2000 and orders passed thereafter. I have
examined the orders passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The said
orders were passed in an appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court
against allotment of quarters in Azadpur, Dhakka Colony and Nimiri Colony
contrary to the provisions of Section 200 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act, 1957 to employees of MCD as owners. The Supreme Court upheld
the judgment of the Delhi High Court holding that the allotment of flats on
sale basis could not have been made to the employees of MCD contrary to
Section 200 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The said judgment
and the orders passed therein are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. The petitioner was not a party to the said case and the case of the
petitioner is not covered by the said judgment. The respondent-MCD has
not stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner had made any claim
for allotment of the said flat on ownership basis. In any case, it is the case
of the Delhi Jal Board that allotment of the flat in question was regularized
as a licensee as he was an employee of Delhi Jal Board. The petitioner
nd
has also placed possession slip dated 2 December, 2000 written by
JE(Works) Ward No. 116, MCD.
8. The question which now arises for consideration is, what relief can be
granted to the petitioner. Delhi Jal Board in their counter affidavit has
stated that the petitioner has been offered accommodation of Type-III and
rd
IV quarters as per his entitlement and letter dated 23 March, 2007 has
been written to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not
responded to the said letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner is no longer interested in allotment of government
accommodation as he has made his private arrangement.
9. In view of the above, no further relief is required to be granted as far
as allotment of flat to the petitioner is concerned. However, the Court
records its displeasure on the conduct of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
rd
in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner on 3 May, 2006 by taking law in
their own hands. It is hoped that the respondent-MCD shall not conduct
itself in the same manner again. The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of with a direction that the concerned officers shall be careful and follow law
before dispossessing any person from official accommodation specially
when there is a dispute between them and any other statutory authority.
10. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The
petitioner is also held entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-. The aforesaid costs
will be paid by the respondent-MCD within four weeks by sending a cheque
to the petitioner at his residential address which shall be furnished to MCD.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MAY 05, 2008
VKR
+ W.P.(C) 7838/2006
RAKESH CHANDRA DUGGAL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. K.P. Gupta, Advocate.
versus
M.C.D. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate for MCD.
Mr. Sandeep Aggarwal, Advocate for DJB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 05.05.2008
1. The petitioner was an employee of Water and Sewerage Department
of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He joined the said department of
st
Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 21 October, 1981 and continued to work
there till 1998. In 1998, Delhi Jal Board was formed and the petitioner was
transferred to the said Board with the MCD no longer looking after water
and sewerage in Delhi.
st
2. On 1 December, 2000, the petitioner was allotted flat No. G-63,
Type-II at Dhakka Colony, Delhi vide Office Order No. 164. The
nd
possession of the flat was handed over to the petitioner on 2 December,
2000 by JE(Works) Ward No. 116, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Possession letter/slip issued by JE(Works), MCD has been filed on record.
3. It is apparent that there was some dispute between the Delhi Jal
Board and Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the question of allotment and
occupation of flats by their employees. It is the case of the petitioner that
there were 73 properties in Delhi which were under exchange and mutual
adjustment between Delhi Jal Board and the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi. The problem had arisen because several employees of the Delhi Jal
Board were earlier employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. It
appears that on 17 April 2002, the petitioner and two others were sought to
be evicted from the flats in their occupation at Dhakka Colony. The
th
occupants gave an undertaking on 17 April, 2002, that they should be
given ten days’ time on humanitarian grounds and undertook that within the
said period, the Delhi Jal Board would provide alternative flats to Municipal
Corporation of Delhi in lieu of the said flats, failing which they would have
no objection in handing over vacant and physical possession of the said
rd
flats to Municipal Corporation of Delhi. On 23 April 2002, the Assistant
Commissioner (L&E) under the Delhi Jal Board wrote to Additional
Commissioner (Land & Estate Department) of Municipal Corporation of
Delhi, confirming that as flat no. G-63 had been allotted to the petitioner a
suitable flat in exchange would be allotted to the Municipal Corporation of
th
Delhi. Thereafter on 17 May, 2002, Delhi Jal Board wrote a letter to
Municipal Corporation of Delhi agreeing to mutual exchange of flats at
Pahari Dheeraj Water Tank, Ahata Kedara in lieu of the flats that had been
allotted to Delhi Jal Board employees, including the petitioner.
th
4. After 17 May, 2002, MCD and Delhi Jal Board became quiet and no
rd
further action was taken. After a gap of about three years, on 3 May,
2006 staff members of MCD came to the flat in question and forcibly
evicted the petitioner. It is an admitted case of the respondent- Municipal
Corporation of Delhi that no eviction decree or an order under the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 had been
passed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was thrown on the road with
all his belongings resulting in inconvenience and harassment to the
petitioner, his wife, children and aged mother. It is stated that the
petitioner’s mother was put through with such humiliation and ill treatment
and she suffered a stroke and was admitted in a hospital.
5. Respondent-MCD in their counter affidavit have admitted that the
petitioner was originally an employee of MCD but ceased to be their
employee after enactment of Delhi Water Board Act, 1998. It is further
stated that employees transferred to the Water Board were not eligible for
regularization of municipal accommodation. Reference in this regard is to
th
be made to the circular issued by Commissioner, MCD dated 24
September, 2001. I may note here that the respondent No. 1-MCD had
themselves agreed to the allotment of the flat to the petitioner with the
nd
JE(Works) Ward No. 116 handing over possession of the same on 2
December, 2000, which is after the enactment of Water Board Act, 1998.
6. Another allegation made in the counter affidavit is that the original
allotment of the flat in question was made to Mr. Brahm Dutt Duggal, father
th
of the petitioner, who had retired on 28 February, 1990. Delhi Jal Board,
however, in their counter affidavit has clarified that the petitioner was given
benefit of policy of father and son relationship and accordingly the allotment
of flat in favour of the petitioner was approved. It is also stated that the
rd
MCD was informed about this fact on 23 April, 2002. The said respondent
had requested MCD for inter pool exchange arrangement in respect of the
th
said flat. The said letter dated 17 May, 2002 was written after the
th
petitioner had already given an undertaking dated 17 April, 2002 to the
MCD. In the said undertaking, the petitioner had agreed that within ten
days alternative flat would be provided to MCD by Delhi Jal Board or he
shall vacate the premises. Offer of alternative flat was made to MCD by
th
Delhi Jal Board on 17 May, 2002.
7. It is apparent that the MCD has acted illegally and taken law in their
own hands by forcibly dispossessing the petitioner from the flat in question
th
on 26 February, 2006. Procedure prescribed by law was not followed.
th
MCD has not referred to any correspondence between 17 May, 2002 till
rd
3 May, 2006. It is an admitted case that no eviction decree has been
passed and no proceedings were initiated under Public Premises (Eviction
of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that eviction was done pursuant to the order of Hon’ble the Supreme
Court in SLP (Civil) No. 17454/2000 and orders passed thereafter. I have
examined the orders passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. The said
orders were passed in an appeal against the judgment of Delhi High Court
against allotment of quarters in Azadpur, Dhakka Colony and Nimiri Colony
contrary to the provisions of Section 200 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act, 1957 to employees of MCD as owners. The Supreme Court upheld
the judgment of the Delhi High Court holding that the allotment of flats on
sale basis could not have been made to the employees of MCD contrary to
Section 200 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The said judgment
and the orders passed therein are not applicable to the facts of the present
case. The petitioner was not a party to the said case and the case of the
petitioner is not covered by the said judgment. The respondent-MCD has
not stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner had made any claim
for allotment of the said flat on ownership basis. In any case, it is the case
of the Delhi Jal Board that allotment of the flat in question was regularized
as a licensee as he was an employee of Delhi Jal Board. The petitioner
nd
has also placed possession slip dated 2 December, 2000 written by
JE(Works) Ward No. 116, MCD.
8. The question which now arises for consideration is, what relief can be
granted to the petitioner. Delhi Jal Board in their counter affidavit has
stated that the petitioner has been offered accommodation of Type-III and
rd
IV quarters as per his entitlement and letter dated 23 March, 2007 has
been written to the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner has not
responded to the said letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that
the petitioner is no longer interested in allotment of government
accommodation as he has made his private arrangement.
9. In view of the above, no further relief is required to be granted as far
as allotment of flat to the petitioner is concerned. However, the Court
records its displeasure on the conduct of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi
rd
in forcibly dispossessing the petitioner on 3 May, 2006 by taking law in
their own hands. It is hoped that the respondent-MCD shall not conduct
itself in the same manner again. The writ petition is accordingly disposed
of with a direction that the concerned officers shall be careful and follow law
before dispossessing any person from official accommodation specially
when there is a dispute between them and any other statutory authority.
10. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. The
petitioner is also held entitled to costs of Rs.5,000/-. The aforesaid costs
will be paid by the respondent-MCD within four weeks by sending a cheque
to the petitioner at his residential address which shall be furnished to MCD.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
MAY 05, 2008
VKR