Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
M/S. SHORI LAL & SONS & ANT.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANT.
DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1994
BENCH:
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATACHALA N. (J)
RAMASWAMY, K.
CITATION:
1995 AIR 1084 1995 SCC (3) 320
JT 1995 (1) 92 1994 SCALE (5)88
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
VENKATACHALA, J.:
1. This appeal by special ’leave is directed against the
Order dated 1.2.1985 by which Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 1264
of 1984 of the appellants was dismissed by the Delhi High
Court.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are :-
Shori Lal and his minor sons were among those who
migrated from Pakistan to India after its partition in 1947.
In the year 1949 Shori Lal occupied 177 square yards of
Government land out of Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan,
Paharganj, Delhi for setting up a business in iron and steel
under the name of his proprietary concern M/s. Shori Lal &
Sons. In the year 1956, Shori Lal’s proprietory concern M/s.
Shori Lal & Sons became partnership firm since Shori Lal’s
first son, Krishan Kumar (Appellant-2), who on attaining the
age of majority, was admitted as its partner. Shori Lal’s
second son, Manmohan Lal was also admitted as the partner of
M/s. Shori Lal & Sons in the year 1962 when he attained the
age of majority. In the meantime 322 square yards of land
out of Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan, lying on the rear side of
the land of 177 square yards of land, where M/s. Shori Lal &
Sons carried on its iron & steel business came to be
occupied by it in the name of its partner Krishan Kumar for
its godown. However, M/s. Shori Lal & Sons carried on its
iron & steel business in the said two places under a single
Sales Tax number and by paying damages for occupation of
both the lands in its name. Delhi Development Authority
94
(DDA) for purposes of assessing damages recoverable for 322
square yards of land in Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan, treated
that land as Premises No. 117 and opened a file therefor as
No.D/JH/KM-117. Further DDA for purposes of assessing
damages recoverable for 177 square yards of land in Plot No.
10242, Motia Khan, treated that land as Premises No. 115 and
opened a file therefor as No. D/JH/KM-115.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
3. However, in the year 1975, DDA in its endeavour to
clear up government land at Motia Khan, Delhi where iron &
steel businesses were carried on by various persons and
firms occupying it unauthorisedly, sought to allot to such
persons and firms alternate plots for their businesses in
the area covered by Naraina Warehousing Scheme. Sizes of
alternate plots which were to be allotted to persons and
firms, ready to shift from their plots in government land at
Motia Khan, by vacating them, had to be done according to
the following criteria:
--------------------------------------------------
Existing area under occupation Area to be allotted
--------------------------------------------------
Below 50 sq. yds. 91.86 sq. yds.
51 to 100 sq. yds. 125 sq. yds.
101 to 150 sq. yds. 172.22 sq. yds.
151 to 200 sq. yds. 200 sq. yds.
201 to 250 sq. yds. 250 sq. yds.
251 to 300 sq. yds. 300 sq. yds.
301 to 400 sq. yds. 400 sq. yds.
401 sq. yds. 450 sq. yds.
and above
4. On applications made to DDA for obtaining such
allotment, Plot No. X-70 of 200 sq. yds. in Naraina
Warehousing Scheme was allotted on 21.7.1975 in lieu of
Premises No. 115 measuring 177 sq. yds. in Motia Khan and
Plot No. Y-5 of 450 sq. yds. in Naraina Warehousing Scheme
was allotted on 25.7.1975 in lieu of both Premises’ No. 117
measuring 322 sq. yds of land in Motia Khan and Premises No.
115 measuring 177 sq. yds. of land in Motia Khan.
5. But, on complaints received at a latter stage when it
was discovered by DDA that Plots Nos. X-70 and Y-5 in the
Naraina Warehousing Scheme allotted in lieu of extents of
lands in Premises Nos. 117 and 115 in Motia Khan, had an
extent of land far. in excess of the extent of the land to
the allotment of which appellants were entitled under the
settled criteria and such allotment of excessive land had
been obtained by Appellant-2 by practicing fraud on it, the
DDA sought to withdraw the allotment of Plot No. X-70 of 200
sq. yds. in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme made in favour of
the appellants and retake possession of the same from the
appellants. When the DDA sent the communication dated
5.5.1984 to the appellants about the withdrawal of such
allotment and the retaking of possession of Plot No. X-70,
the appellants challenged the validity of that
communication, by filing writ petition, C.W.P. No. 1264 of
1984 in Delhi High Court. But the High Court dismissed that
Writ Petition by its order
95
dated 1.2.1985. It is the question of sustainability of
that order of the High Court which arises for consideration
in the present appeal by special leave filed by the
appellants adverted to at the outset.
6. Since the arguments advanced before us in the present
appeal were rounded on certain orders made by this Court
earlier, reference to them has become necessary. First
order made by this Court on 17.9.1985 relates to issue of
Notice on S.L.P. confining it for consideration of the
question of cancellation of allotment of Plot No. X-70.
Another order made by this Court.on the S.L.P. on
18.12.1985 reads:
"The matter is adjourned for one month to
enable Delhi Development Authority to take
appropriate action on a uniform basis against
all the persons mentioned in paragraph 24 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
the Special Leave Petition and the additional
affidavit dated 6.9.85. The Delhi Development
Authority cannot discriminate between persons
belonging to the same class and equally
situated. The report shall be submitted by
DDA within a month in this respect. The matter
shall be listed on 27th January, 1986."
7. By subsequent order dated 17.2.1986 made by this
Court on the S.L.P., Special Leave is granted and a
direction is given thus:
"We direct the Delhi Development Authority to
constitute a Committee of Inquiry to look into
the several allegations made by the
petitioners as regards the irregularities
committed in the matter of allotment of plots
in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme, Phase 1."
8. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants by
their learned Senior Counsel, Shri Soli Sorabjee was that
this appeal of the appellants was required to be allowed,
the order of the High Court under appeal set aside and the
order of the DDA cancelling the allotment of Plot No. X-70
made in favour of appellant-l quashed since the DDA had
failed to carry out the directions of this Court contained
in the Order dated 18.12.1985 and the Order dated 12.7.1986
as regards constitution of Enquiry Committee to look into
irregularities in allotment of plots and submit a report to
this Court in the matter even if it had a justifiable ground
to cancel the order of allotment of Plot No. X’70 made by it
in favour of appellant-l.
9. From the order made by this Court on 18.12.1985 at the
SLP stage, which we have excerpted already, DDA was directed
specifically to examine the cases of double allotments of
plots mentioned in Paragraph 24 of the Special Leave
Petition, and submit a report thereon to this Court. But, as
seen from the original files of the DDA, a Committee has
been, no doubt constituted by it to examine the cases of
double allotment of plots mentioned in Paragraph 24 of the
Special Leave Petition requiring it to make a report in the
matter for placing the same before this Court. Then, when
another order dated 17.2.1986 of this Court, already
adverted to by us, has come to be passed granting Special
Leave in the SLP and directing the DDA to constitute ’an
Enquiry Committee to look into the serious irregularities
alleged to have been committed in the matter of allotment of
plots by the DDA in Naraina Warehousing Scheme, Phase-l,
matter of enquiry does not appear to have been pursued by
the DDA. As seen from the files of the DDA the Enquiry
Committee said to have
96
been constituted to look into the irregularities committed
in the matter of allotment of plots in Naraina Warehousing
Scheme, does not appear to have even met after 23.1.1990.
The question is, whether this inaction of the DDA should
become the ground for us to uphold the allotment of plots of
land made in favour of the appellants, even though the
second allotment of plot had been obtained by appellant-2
far in excess of the area to which the appellants were
entitled and the cancellation of allotment of Plot No. X-70
made in favour of appellant-l, was rightly not interfered
with by the High Court ? We do not think that the facts of
the present case warrant upholding both the allotments of
plots made in favour of the appellants by the DDA and
interfering with the cancellation by the DDA of allotment of
Plot No. X-70 made in favour of appellant-l by it for the
reasons which we shall, presently set out.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
10. Appellant-l is a partnership firm with partners, the
2nd appellant - Krishan Kumar, his brother - Manmohan Lal
and his father - Shori Lal, is an admitted fact. While the
business of iron and steel was carried on by that firm in
Premises No. 115, Premises No. 117 in the name of its
partner, Krishan Kumar appears to have been used as its
godown. If there were to be more premises than one occupied
by a partnership firm and its partners to carry on iron and
steel business in Motia Khan area, such persons were
entitled to obtain alternate plot/plots limited to the area
specified in the aforementioned criteria, the same being the
policy of the DDA to provide alternative plots for the
persons who had to vacate the plots in Motia Khan area and
get plots in the area covered by the Naraina Warehousing
Scheme or other schemes. But, what has been done by Krishan
Kumar, as disclosed from the original DDA records, in
getting allotments of Plot No. X-70 measuring 200 sq. yds.
and Plot No. Y-5 measuring 450 sq. yds. in Naraina
Warehousing Scheme is nothing short of fraud played by him
on the DDA, even though connivance of officers of DDA in the
matter cannot be ruled out. The contents of application for
allotment made by Shori Lal, his statement relating to
Premises No. 115, Motia Khan and the contents of allotment
order allotting Plot No. X-70 in lieu of Premises No.115,
Motia Khan, as disclosed from the excerpt of the original
application for allotment are these:
"I Shori Lal son of Shri Ram Singh for and on
behalf of M/s. Shod Lal & Sons have today 21st
July, 1975 voluntarily handed over peaceful
possession of Premises No. D/TH/KM/115, Motia
Khan, to DDA and shifted to Naraina
Warehousing Scheme. I have not been allotted
any plot by the DDA.
Area = 117 sq. yds.
Pre-1960
Sd/- in Urdu
Signature of the Applicant
He may be allotted Plot No. X-70
Measuring 200 square yards
Countersigned
Sd/
(Executive Officer)"
11. Then, when it comes to Krishan Kumar’s original
application for allotment, his statement relating to
surrender of possession of Premises No. 117 and Premises No.
115, Motia Khan, and the allotment order made on the basis
of such statement allotting Plot No. Y-5 in lieu of Premises
97
No. 117 and Premises No. 115, Motia Khan. reads thus:
"I. Krishan Kumar s/o Shri Shori Lal. Krishan
Kumar and Manmohan Lal for and on behalf of
M/s. Shori Lal have today 27th July. 1975
voluntarily handed over peaceful possession of
Premises No. D/TH/KM/117 & 115 Motia Khan to
the Delhi Development Authority and shifted to
Naraina Warehousing Scheme. I have not been
allotted any plot by the DDA.
Area = 499
Pre - 1960
K.K.Moga
Sd/-
Signature of the Applicant
Sd/-
Krishan Kumar
He may be allotted Plot No. Y-5
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
Measuring 450 sq. yards.
Countersigned
Sd/
(Executive Officer)"
12. As becomes clear from the contents of the above
application and the above allotment order. an application is
made by Krishan Kumar to get allotment of a plot of land for
M/s. Shori Lal, Krishan Kumar and Manmohan Lal. the partners
of M/s. Shori Lal & Sons in lieu of both Premises No. 117
and also Premises No. 115 in Motia Khan because of handing
over possession of them to the DDA. The statement made
therein in the handwriting of Krishan Kumar himself that "I
have not been allotted any plot by DDA" in unequivocal
language indicates that he had not been allotted any plot in
lieu of both Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115. Motia
Khan. is a falsehood. in that. for Premises No. 115. handed
over by Shori Lal he had already obtained 200 sq. yds. of
Plot No. X-70 of Naraina Warehousing Scheme.
13. As has been pointed out by us earlier. there were two
files, one relating to Premises No. 117 which was No.D/JH/
KM/117 covering an area of 322 sq. yds. and another relating
to Premises No. 115 was No.D/JH/KM/115 relating to 177 sq.
yds. When the allotment of alternate plot was made in favour
of M/s. Shori Lal. Krishan Kumar and Manmohan Lal. both the
files being the areas of two premiseses are taken together
as 322 sq. yds. + 177 sq. yds., their entitlement for
allotment is considered to be 499 sq. yds. of one plot. But.
under the criteria of allotment of alternate plots to which
we have referred to. the area of such plot could not have
exceeded 450 sq. yds. That is how for both the premiseses.
i.e., Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115. appellant-l and
its partners including appellant-2 are given Plot No. Y-5 of
450 sq. yds. in Naraina Warehousing Scheme. This also
becomes clear from allotment letter issued to all the three
partners by the DDA. If Krishan Kumar had not stated in his
application that he was not given an alternate plot for both
the premiseses. i.e., Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115.
Motia Khan. New Delhi. and if he had not stated that he had
surrendered both of them. there would not have been any
scope for the DDA to allot to him a huge Plot No. Y-5.
measuring 450 sq. yds. which was the only full entitlement
in lieu of two premises. It is these glaring facts which
have led us to the conclusion that Krishan Kumar. appellant-
2. has played fraud on the DDA in making a wilful
misrepresentation about the handing over of possession of
premiseses as also the non-obtaining of alternate plots in
his application for
98
allotment. When such fraud is the cause for obtaining the
allotment of Plot No. Y5 measuring 450 sq. yds. in Naraina
Warehousing Scheme, there could be no justification for
retention by the firm and its partners earlier allotment
made of Plot No. X70 measuring 200 sq. yds., which would be
beyond their entitlement. Since this Court, while issuing
notice on S.L.P., has limited the consideration of this
appeal to the question of cancellation of allotment of Plot
No. X-70 in Naraina Warehousing Scheme, we find that the
cancellation of that plot by the DDA was rightly upheld by
the High Court by dismissing the Writ Petition of the
appellants. That order of the High Court does not call for
our interference.
14. The next question is, whether DDA, which has failed to
carry out the specific orders of this Court in holding the
enquiry in respect of double allotments and irregularities
alleged to have been committed in making allotment of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
alternate plots, and making a report thereon, should be
proceeded against by taking contempt action against it.
Public bodies like, DDA, which are trustees of public
properties, and are to carry out public functions, in our
view, cannot escape their accountability for their failure
to carry out the orders of this Court made in public
interest. The officers of the DDA, who are guilty of
inaction, in our view, should be proceeded against in
contempt action. Adoption of such course, in our view, is
necessary for the reason that if the officers of the DDA or
similar public bodies are directed by this Court to confer
benefits on certain ineligible persons either because of
such officers’ inaction or because of conferment by such
officers of similar benefits on others who were ineligible
for them, the same could result not only in public loss but
also in providing unwarranted protection to officers from
their liability for punitive action on account of wrongs
committed by them. However, in the facts of the present
case, DDA and its concerned officers, we feel, should be
given a further opportunity to carry out the orders of this
Court in the matter of constituting an Enquiry Committee and
enquiring into the irregularities or illegalities adverted
to in the orders and making a report therefor, before making
them liable for inaction, if any. We, therefore, propose to
grant as a last chance to DDA and its concerned officers
three months’ time to comply with the orders of this Court
made on 18.12.1985 and on 17.2.1986, and make a report of
remedial action taken in the matter, before proceeding to
take contempt action against them for non-compliance with
the orders of this Court. The Registry of this Court shall
put up this case for orders in the matter immediately on the
expiry of three months from today.
15. Subject to the above directions given to DDA and the
Registry of this Court, we dismiss this Civil Appeal, but
without costs. C.M.P. No. 38020 of 1980 of petitioners
therein for impleadment as supplemental respondents in this
Civil Appeal is rejected as not surviving for consideration.
However, a copy of this order be sent forthwith by the
Registry of this Court to the Chairman, Delhi Development
Authority, Vikas Bhawan, Indraprasta Estate, New Delhi, with
a view to enable the D.D.A. to comply with the directions
given . to it therein.
99