Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : January 15, 2007
Date of Decision : January 25, 2007
+ W.P. (C) 19837/2005 & CM 12800/2005
RAM NIWAS ..... PETITIONER
Through :Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate
versus
D.D.A. .... RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sangita Chandra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest? Yes
: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This writ petition seeks a mandamus to the respondent to
carry out mutation in respect of plot No. BP-123, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi in favour of the petitioner and also to hand over possession of
the said plot in terms of the recommendations of the Permanent
Lok Adalat.
2. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Veera Wali, the
mother of the petitioner applied for allotment of residential plot in
Shalimar Bagh vide application dated 18.8.1975. The background
to this application was that many persons were evicted from the
old Subzi Mandi in Delhi and under a special scheme each of them
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 1 of 8
was allotted a shop at the New Subzi Mandi at Azad Pur. They
were also given a residential plot in Shalimar Bagh according to
their income.
3. The plot No. C-27 in the New Subzi Mandi was allotted in
favour of M/s Darshan Lal and Co. having two partners: Sri
Darshan Lal S/o Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Balwant Rai S/o Lal
rd rd
Chand having 2/3 and 1/3 shares respectively under a deed of
partnership dated 8.9.1965. Shri Balwant Rai went missing since
September/October 1971 and was not heard of even till 1975 when
the aforementioned special scheme for allotment of residential
plots to those occupying places of business at the Old Subzi Mandi
was formulated. A shop No. C-27 was allotted to the firm at the
New Subzi Mandi.
4. Since Sri Balwant Rai, the petitioner's father went missing
since 11.9.1971, his mother Smt. Veera Wali was inducted as a
partner on 6.11.1972 with a 33% share. Smt. Veera Wali applied
for allotment of plot vide application No. 506 and by letter dated
30.9.1975, she was allotted plot No. BP-123, measuring 100 sq.
yards. The demanded amount of Rs. 3011/- was deposited by Smt.
Veera Wali by cheque No. 085132 within the time prescribed.
5. The other partner of the firm, viz, Sri Darshan Lal, who is
the real brother of Smt. Veera Wali, relinquished his rights in the
firm in favour of Smt. Veera Wali. Thus Smt. Veera Wali became
the sole legatee of the firm.
6. The possession of the residential plot No. BP-123, Shalimar
Bagh was not given to Smt. Veera Wali despite her making the full
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 2 of 8
payment. By a letter dated 4.7.1980, the respondent informed her
that this would be considered only after the shop at C-27 New
Subzi Mandi is mutated in her favour. This mutation of the shop,
for no fault of Smt. Veera Wali, was done in her favour by the DDA
only on 24.11.1990 and this fact was communicated to her on
17.12.1990. Further, without getting possession of the residential
plot which she had been pursuing all along, Smt. Veera Wali died
in 1994. It is not in dispute that upon her death the present
petitioner herein applied on 15.9.1995 for mutating his name in
place of his mother Smt. Veera Wali. He also submitted
relinquishment deed of the other legal heirs of his late mother.
7. By this time, according to the respondent, a resolution No. 93
dated 4.10.1985 came to be passed by the respondent DDA
whereby it was decided that “the cases of 1975-76 in which
payment of premium was not either made or delayed, should not be
reopened.” Clearly the case of the petitioner was not within this
category since Smt. Veera Wali had already made full payment
demanded in respect of allotment of residential plot No. BP-123,
Shalimar Bagh.
8. The respondent also seeks to justify its decision not to grant
possession of plot No. BP-123 to Smt. Veera Wali on the basis of a
decision taken by it at a meeting dated 4.4.2000 presided over by
Lt. Governor to the effect that “the cases of allotment of plots in
Shalimar Bagh to shop owners of Subzi Mandi may be closed.” The
respondent gives no reasons for this unilateral decision,
particularly when in cases like that of Smt. Veera Wali, consequent
upon a valid allotment the entire payment had already been made
and she was denied possession of the plot for no fault of hers.
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 3 of 8
9. From the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, it appears that
there were at least 9 cases where persons were awaiting either
allotments or possession of the plots. A review meeting was held
on 21.9.1997 by the respondent where it was decided that “the
facts of each case had to be examined by the Commissioner
(Housing) and Director (RL) in consultation with non-official
members; that the applicants should also be heard and the final
recommendation should thereafter be submitted to the DDA.”
10. It appears that of the 9 cases, in two cases, the allotment was
restored by the Lt. Governor and in two cases it was restored on
the recommendation of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, 5 cases
remained undecided. Two more cases then emerged and all the 7
cases were considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat – DDA
presided over by Judge S.M. Aggarwal (Retd.). By a decision dated
19.6.2001, the Permanent Lok Adalat after hearing the petitioner
as well as the Deputy Director (RL) DDA found that resolution
dated 4.10.1985 did not apply in the present case. It further held
as under:
“Similarly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
his legitimate right on account of order dated
4.4.90 passed in the file of Smt. Santosh
Dhawan bearing No.F.16(145)75/LSB(R) as the
reason for passing the said order was that
allotment made in 1975-76 cannot be
regularized for obtaining pre-determined rates
of 1975-76 in 1990 when the current market
rate was about Rs.8000/- per sq. yd. In the
instant case, Smt. Veera Wali had been entitled
to apply for allotment of residential plot and
had paid the full price as per demand letter
dated 30.9.1975. Thus, Authority Resolution
No. 93 dated 4.10.1985 nor the order of the
then Hon'ble Lt. Governor dated 4.4.90 could
be a ground for not issuing letter of possession
of the allotted plot to Smt. Veera Wali.
Unfortunately, Smt. Veera Wali died on
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 4 of 8
1.12.1994 without enjoying the fruits of the plot
allotted to her about 20 years before her death.
The petitioner being her son and in whose
favour Relinquishment Deed has been executed
by all his brothers and sisters on 15.9.1995
registered on that date is, therefore, entitled
for issuance of letter of possession of plot No.
BP-123 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
It may be mentioned that it is a case where the
petitioner and his mother were made to wait
for last 25 years for no fault of theirs and delay
was entirely due to bureaucratic working. I,
therefore, direct that the copy of this order
along with the file of the plot shall be submitted
to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi for his kind
approval. Case is adjourned to 14.8.2001.”
11. Although one would have expected DDA to have respected
the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it apparently did not do
so and desired to once again examine all the 11 cases (i.e., the 7
cases and the earlier 4 cases) afresh. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that after examining the matter, the Lt. Governor took a
decision to the following effect:
“I am of the opinion that DDA should abide the
recommendations made by the Authority's
Resolution No. 93/1985, the orders of the then
Lt. Governor dated 4-4-90 and the
recommendations of the Committee constituted
under Commissioner (Housing) of not re-
opening of all these cases.”
There is nothing to indicate that there was any consideration of the
facts of the individual cases including that of the petitioner's
mother.
12. In the counter affidavit it is stated by the DDA that the 9
cases were closed mainly on the following grounds:-
“i) Dispute in partnership of firm.
ii) Non mutation of shop plot in the name
of the partner of the firm.
iii) Belated payment of premium.”
It is plain from the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner's
case does not fall under any of the above categories. First, there
was no dispute in the firm of M/s Darshan Lal and Co. The
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 5 of 8
petitioner's mother became a partner by virtue of the Partnership
Deed dated 6.11.1972. This has been confirmed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat in its proceedings dated 19.6.2001. The mutation of the
shop C-27 at the New Subzi Mandi has taken place in favour of
Smt. Veera Wali by the DDA itself, although belatedly on
17.12.1990. The mutation of the shop in favour of the petitioner's
mother was in her capacity as a partner of the firm. The delay in
the mutation was attributable wholly to the DDA. The third ground
of closure, viz., belated payment of premium, also does not apply to
the present case. Therefore, there was absolutely no justification
whatsoever for closure of the petitioner's case.
13. The assertion made in the counter affidavit that
“subsequently it was found that she (Smt. Veera Wali) was neither
a partner in the firm of Darshan Lal and Co. to whom the shop plot
was allotted nor she was allottee of the shop plot.” is not only
without basis, but completely belied by the fact that the shop C-27
allotted in the New Subzi Mandi at Azad Pur was in fact mutated in
the name of Smt. Veera Wali by the DDA itself on 17.12.1990.
Therefore, the stand taken by the DDA in this case is wholly
unjustified. The unilateral decision as evidenced by resolution
dated 4.10.1985, does not apply to the case of Smt. Veera Wali.
The decision of the Lt. Governor at the meeting on 4.4.1990 is also
unsustainable in law on account on non-application of mind to the
facts of Smt. Veera Wali's case. Consequently, the stand of the
respondent that it did not process the case of the petitioner for
allotment of the residential plot since the case “was already closed
in view of the Authority Resolution and orders of the Lt. Governor,
Delhi” is wholly unjustified.
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 6 of 8
14. It is also a matter of concern that in the present case the
DDA did not act on the findings rendered by the Permanent Lok
Adalat that was set up exclusively for dealing with the disputes
involving DDA. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that when the
meeting was held on 19.10.2005, the authority took the following
decision:-
“Sh. Mahabal Mishra sought an enquiry
into restoration of four plots by the L.G.
against specific decision contrary to the
one taken by the Authority. He pointed
out that Lok Adalat recommendations
were advisory in nature and could not
be made on the basis for superseding
the decision of the authority.
After detailed discussion, it was decided by
the Authority to close the matter.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. This Court is constrained to observe that the Permanent Lok
Adalat is a statutory body in terms of Section 22 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act). The purpose of setting
up such a body would be rendered nugatory if its decisions are
sought to be undermined by the unreasonable stand of the DDA.
The object of introducing these provisions, and in particular
Chapter VI A, in the LSA Act would be defeated if DDA does not
accept the decision of its own Permanent Lok Adalat, particularly
where it is upon an investigation of facts and after hearing the
representative of the DDA.
16. The Court's attention is drawn to a decision dated 6.10.2006
in Writ Petition No. 20190/2005 (Smt. Santosh Dhawan v. DDA)
where, in identical circumstances, this Court allowed the writ
petition and issued consequential directions.
17. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the following
directions are issued to the DDA:-
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 7 of 8
(a) The DDA will mutate and regularize the plot No.
BP-123, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (measuring 100 sq.
yards) in favour of the petitioner.
(b) The DDA will hand over the possession of the
Plot No. BP-123, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (measuring
100 sq. yards) to the petitioner.
(c) The DDA will pay to the petitioner costs of
Rs.15,000/-
(d) Directions (a) to (c) above will be complied with
by the DDA positively within three months from today
and in any event not later than 25.4.2007.
18. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and
disposed of as such. The pending application also stands disposed
of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
January 25, 2007
raj
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 8 of 8
% Reserved on : January 15, 2007
Date of Decision : January 25, 2007
+ W.P. (C) 19837/2005 & CM 12800/2005
RAM NIWAS ..... PETITIONER
Through :Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate
versus
D.D.A. .... RESPONDENT
Through: Ms. Sangita Chandra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest? Yes
: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. This writ petition seeks a mandamus to the respondent to
carry out mutation in respect of plot No. BP-123, Shalimar Bagh,
Delhi in favour of the petitioner and also to hand over possession of
the said plot in terms of the recommendations of the Permanent
Lok Adalat.
2. The facts of the case are that one Smt. Veera Wali, the
mother of the petitioner applied for allotment of residential plot in
Shalimar Bagh vide application dated 18.8.1975. The background
to this application was that many persons were evicted from the
old Subzi Mandi in Delhi and under a special scheme each of them
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 1 of 8
was allotted a shop at the New Subzi Mandi at Azad Pur. They
were also given a residential plot in Shalimar Bagh according to
their income.
3. The plot No. C-27 in the New Subzi Mandi was allotted in
favour of M/s Darshan Lal and Co. having two partners: Sri
Darshan Lal S/o Ayodhya Prasad and Sri Balwant Rai S/o Lal
rd rd
Chand having 2/3 and 1/3 shares respectively under a deed of
partnership dated 8.9.1965. Shri Balwant Rai went missing since
September/October 1971 and was not heard of even till 1975 when
the aforementioned special scheme for allotment of residential
plots to those occupying places of business at the Old Subzi Mandi
was formulated. A shop No. C-27 was allotted to the firm at the
New Subzi Mandi.
4. Since Sri Balwant Rai, the petitioner's father went missing
since 11.9.1971, his mother Smt. Veera Wali was inducted as a
partner on 6.11.1972 with a 33% share. Smt. Veera Wali applied
for allotment of plot vide application No. 506 and by letter dated
30.9.1975, she was allotted plot No. BP-123, measuring 100 sq.
yards. The demanded amount of Rs. 3011/- was deposited by Smt.
Veera Wali by cheque No. 085132 within the time prescribed.
5. The other partner of the firm, viz, Sri Darshan Lal, who is
the real brother of Smt. Veera Wali, relinquished his rights in the
firm in favour of Smt. Veera Wali. Thus Smt. Veera Wali became
the sole legatee of the firm.
6. The possession of the residential plot No. BP-123, Shalimar
Bagh was not given to Smt. Veera Wali despite her making the full
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 2 of 8
payment. By a letter dated 4.7.1980, the respondent informed her
that this would be considered only after the shop at C-27 New
Subzi Mandi is mutated in her favour. This mutation of the shop,
for no fault of Smt. Veera Wali, was done in her favour by the DDA
only on 24.11.1990 and this fact was communicated to her on
17.12.1990. Further, without getting possession of the residential
plot which she had been pursuing all along, Smt. Veera Wali died
in 1994. It is not in dispute that upon her death the present
petitioner herein applied on 15.9.1995 for mutating his name in
place of his mother Smt. Veera Wali. He also submitted
relinquishment deed of the other legal heirs of his late mother.
7. By this time, according to the respondent, a resolution No. 93
dated 4.10.1985 came to be passed by the respondent DDA
whereby it was decided that “the cases of 1975-76 in which
payment of premium was not either made or delayed, should not be
reopened.” Clearly the case of the petitioner was not within this
category since Smt. Veera Wali had already made full payment
demanded in respect of allotment of residential plot No. BP-123,
Shalimar Bagh.
8. The respondent also seeks to justify its decision not to grant
possession of plot No. BP-123 to Smt. Veera Wali on the basis of a
decision taken by it at a meeting dated 4.4.2000 presided over by
Lt. Governor to the effect that “the cases of allotment of plots in
Shalimar Bagh to shop owners of Subzi Mandi may be closed.” The
respondent gives no reasons for this unilateral decision,
particularly when in cases like that of Smt. Veera Wali, consequent
upon a valid allotment the entire payment had already been made
and she was denied possession of the plot for no fault of hers.
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 3 of 8
9. From the counter affidavit filed by the DDA, it appears that
there were at least 9 cases where persons were awaiting either
allotments or possession of the plots. A review meeting was held
on 21.9.1997 by the respondent where it was decided that “the
facts of each case had to be examined by the Commissioner
(Housing) and Director (RL) in consultation with non-official
members; that the applicants should also be heard and the final
recommendation should thereafter be submitted to the DDA.”
10. It appears that of the 9 cases, in two cases, the allotment was
restored by the Lt. Governor and in two cases it was restored on
the recommendation of the Lok Adalat. Therefore, 5 cases
remained undecided. Two more cases then emerged and all the 7
cases were considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat – DDA
presided over by Judge S.M. Aggarwal (Retd.). By a decision dated
19.6.2001, the Permanent Lok Adalat after hearing the petitioner
as well as the Deputy Director (RL) DDA found that resolution
dated 4.10.1985 did not apply in the present case. It further held
as under:
“Similarly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of
his legitimate right on account of order dated
4.4.90 passed in the file of Smt. Santosh
Dhawan bearing No.F.16(145)75/LSB(R) as the
reason for passing the said order was that
allotment made in 1975-76 cannot be
regularized for obtaining pre-determined rates
of 1975-76 in 1990 when the current market
rate was about Rs.8000/- per sq. yd. In the
instant case, Smt. Veera Wali had been entitled
to apply for allotment of residential plot and
had paid the full price as per demand letter
dated 30.9.1975. Thus, Authority Resolution
No. 93 dated 4.10.1985 nor the order of the
then Hon'ble Lt. Governor dated 4.4.90 could
be a ground for not issuing letter of possession
of the allotted plot to Smt. Veera Wali.
Unfortunately, Smt. Veera Wali died on
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 4 of 8
1.12.1994 without enjoying the fruits of the plot
allotted to her about 20 years before her death.
The petitioner being her son and in whose
favour Relinquishment Deed has been executed
by all his brothers and sisters on 15.9.1995
registered on that date is, therefore, entitled
for issuance of letter of possession of plot No.
BP-123 Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
It may be mentioned that it is a case where the
petitioner and his mother were made to wait
for last 25 years for no fault of theirs and delay
was entirely due to bureaucratic working. I,
therefore, direct that the copy of this order
along with the file of the plot shall be submitted
to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi for his kind
approval. Case is adjourned to 14.8.2001.”
11. Although one would have expected DDA to have respected
the decision of the Permanent Lok Adalat, it apparently did not do
so and desired to once again examine all the 11 cases (i.e., the 7
cases and the earlier 4 cases) afresh. It is stated in the counter
affidavit that after examining the matter, the Lt. Governor took a
decision to the following effect:
“I am of the opinion that DDA should abide the
recommendations made by the Authority's
Resolution No. 93/1985, the orders of the then
Lt. Governor dated 4-4-90 and the
recommendations of the Committee constituted
under Commissioner (Housing) of not re-
opening of all these cases.”
There is nothing to indicate that there was any consideration of the
facts of the individual cases including that of the petitioner's
mother.
12. In the counter affidavit it is stated by the DDA that the 9
cases were closed mainly on the following grounds:-
“i) Dispute in partnership of firm.
ii) Non mutation of shop plot in the name
of the partner of the firm.
iii) Belated payment of premium.”
It is plain from the facts narrated hereinabove that the petitioner's
case does not fall under any of the above categories. First, there
was no dispute in the firm of M/s Darshan Lal and Co. The
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 5 of 8
petitioner's mother became a partner by virtue of the Partnership
Deed dated 6.11.1972. This has been confirmed by the Permanent
Lok Adalat in its proceedings dated 19.6.2001. The mutation of the
shop C-27 at the New Subzi Mandi has taken place in favour of
Smt. Veera Wali by the DDA itself, although belatedly on
17.12.1990. The mutation of the shop in favour of the petitioner's
mother was in her capacity as a partner of the firm. The delay in
the mutation was attributable wholly to the DDA. The third ground
of closure, viz., belated payment of premium, also does not apply to
the present case. Therefore, there was absolutely no justification
whatsoever for closure of the petitioner's case.
13. The assertion made in the counter affidavit that
“subsequently it was found that she (Smt. Veera Wali) was neither
a partner in the firm of Darshan Lal and Co. to whom the shop plot
was allotted nor she was allottee of the shop plot.” is not only
without basis, but completely belied by the fact that the shop C-27
allotted in the New Subzi Mandi at Azad Pur was in fact mutated in
the name of Smt. Veera Wali by the DDA itself on 17.12.1990.
Therefore, the stand taken by the DDA in this case is wholly
unjustified. The unilateral decision as evidenced by resolution
dated 4.10.1985, does not apply to the case of Smt. Veera Wali.
The decision of the Lt. Governor at the meeting on 4.4.1990 is also
unsustainable in law on account on non-application of mind to the
facts of Smt. Veera Wali's case. Consequently, the stand of the
respondent that it did not process the case of the petitioner for
allotment of the residential plot since the case “was already closed
in view of the Authority Resolution and orders of the Lt. Governor,
Delhi” is wholly unjustified.
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 6 of 8
14. It is also a matter of concern that in the present case the
DDA did not act on the findings rendered by the Permanent Lok
Adalat that was set up exclusively for dealing with the disputes
involving DDA. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that when the
meeting was held on 19.10.2005, the authority took the following
decision:-
“Sh. Mahabal Mishra sought an enquiry
into restoration of four plots by the L.G.
against specific decision contrary to the
one taken by the Authority. He pointed
out that Lok Adalat recommendations
were advisory in nature and could not
be made on the basis for superseding
the decision of the authority.
After detailed discussion, it was decided by
the Authority to close the matter.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. This Court is constrained to observe that the Permanent Lok
Adalat is a statutory body in terms of Section 22 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987 (LSA Act). The purpose of setting
up such a body would be rendered nugatory if its decisions are
sought to be undermined by the unreasonable stand of the DDA.
The object of introducing these provisions, and in particular
Chapter VI A, in the LSA Act would be defeated if DDA does not
accept the decision of its own Permanent Lok Adalat, particularly
where it is upon an investigation of facts and after hearing the
representative of the DDA.
16. The Court's attention is drawn to a decision dated 6.10.2006
in Writ Petition No. 20190/2005 (Smt. Santosh Dhawan v. DDA)
where, in identical circumstances, this Court allowed the writ
petition and issued consequential directions.
17. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the following
directions are issued to the DDA:-
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 7 of 8
(a) The DDA will mutate and regularize the plot No.
BP-123, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (measuring 100 sq.
yards) in favour of the petitioner.
(b) The DDA will hand over the possession of the
Plot No. BP-123, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi (measuring
100 sq. yards) to the petitioner.
(c) The DDA will pay to the petitioner costs of
Rs.15,000/-
(d) Directions (a) to (c) above will be complied with
by the DDA positively within three months from today
and in any event not later than 25.4.2007.
18. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed and
disposed of as such. The pending application also stands disposed
of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
January 25, 2007
raj
WP(C) 19837/2005 page no 8 of 8