Naresh Kumar & Anr v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr

14. Per Contra, Ms. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent, opposes the present writ petition and states that the petitioners had deposited the entire sale consideration in the year 2019 and, pursuant thereto, a Conveyance Deed in respect of Plot No. 46 was duly executed in their favour on 16.04.2021, thereby conferring complete title and possession upon the petitioners. Thus, upon execution of the Conveyance Deed and delivery of possession, the rights and obligations of the parties stood concluded, and the DDA ceased to have any continuing obligation in respect of the said plot.

15. It was further submitted that the petitioners failed to utilise or develop the plot despite having acquired absolute ownership thereof. Accordingly, any subsequent encroachment, obstruction or unauthorised occupation over the plot cannot be attributed to the DDA, as it is not the responsibility of the authority to keep the same free from encroachment after possession has been handed over to the allottee. The petitioners cannot now seek to impose liability upon the DDA for events that allegedly occurred after the execution of the Conveyance Deed, nor can they claim an alternate plot on that basis.

16. She further draws my attention to paragraph Nos. 15 and 19 of the Counter Affidavit filed by DDA to support her contentions. The same 15:18 read as follows:

15:18 terms and condition of the e-auction, the Conveyance Deed in respect of Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini has been executed and registered which does not suffer from any infirmity. The option of swapping of plots after execution of a registered Conveyance Deed, is found to be impermissible under the Nazul Rules, 1981 and therefore the conveyance deed cannot be cancelled. Thus, the proposal made for swapping of plots to the Hon'ble LG at the behest of the Petitioner could not be approved. Hence the allotment cannot be cancelled as per rules. However, in view of the peculiar facts of the case and the requests of the petitioner the matter was yet again examined by the respondent but the cancellation of the allotment already made and alternate allotment was not found permissible as per the policy, governing rules and regulations and in Law.”

17. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

18. Before delving into the merits of the controversy, it is pertinent to note that Note No. 16 and 17 of the documents received through RTI show that on a request received from the Additional Commissioner, Projects and area MLA/Authority Member of DDA Sh. Vijender Gupta the residential plot Nos. 44, 45 and 46 were merged with adjacent land earmarked for park, dustbin, urinal/lavatory block. The same read as under: “Note # 16 15:18 PUC received from Addl. Commr. (Plg.) Projects wherein he has stated that a meeting was held in the chamber of VC, DDA on 26.08.2021 to discuss the request of Hon’ble area MLA/Authority member Sh. Vijender Gupta DDA for merging the residential plots bearing no. 44, 45 & 46 with adjacent land earmarked for park, dustbin, urinary/lavatory block. (P-170-176/c) Further he has stated that allottee of plot no. 46 has submitted his consent vide letter dated 27.08.21 for allotment of alternate plot i.e. plot no. 106, Block E[1] (as first preference) and plot no. 111, block E[1] (second preference) in lieu of plot no. 46, Block E[2], sector 7, Rohini. The land department may also examine the financial implication involved in the relocation of plot no. 46 and also the cost liable to be paid by the allottee of plot no. 46 for allotment of alternate plot in lieu of the conveyance deed already executed for the under reference plot. The applicant Sh. Naresh Kumar and Smt. Pinki Goyal vide letter dated 21.09.2021 has requested to issue the exchange letter or allotment letter for the new plot to be allotted by DDA, in lieu of 46, Block E[2], sector 7, Rohini. (p-164-169/C). In view of above, the matter to merge the residential plots bearing no. 44, 45 & 46 with adjacent land earmarked for park etc. and the allotment of alternate plot i.e. plot no. 106 (first preference) or plot no. 111 (second preference) in lieu of plot no. 46, Block E[2], sector 7, Rohini is submitted for 15:18 kind consideration and further orders please. Submitted please. 21/09/2021 1:24 PM SD (JSA)” “Note # 17 Sub: Regarding revision of layout plan of Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini near Naharpur and subsequently exchange/swapping of plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7 with plot No. 111, E-1 Sector-7, Rohini. May glance at the letter dated 3.9.21 of Addl Commr (Plg) addressed to Commissioner (LD) on the subject noted above page 170-176/C. Vide letter Addl. Commr (Plg) had informed that a meeting was held in the Chamber of VC, DDA on 26.8.21 to discuss the request of area MLA/Authority member Sh. Vijender Gupta for merging of residential plots bearing No. 44, 45 & 46 (560.29 sqm) with adjacent land earmarked for park, dustbin, urinal/lavatory etc to make large park and playground in Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini in public interest. In the meeting it was decided that the request of area MLA may be considered as all the three plots mentioned above are not feasible due to standing of fully grown trees on land. It was also decided that possibility to carve out residential plots on the DDA’s acquired land in the vicinity be explored 15:18 and swapped with the area of park and residential plots. Out of the above mentioned three residential plots, possession in r/o Plot No. 46 has been issued to Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Shyam Lal and Smt. Pinky Goyal W/o Sh. Naresh Kumar and CD executed. Further, Naharpur Varisth Nagrik Kalyan Sangh and Anubhav Sports Clib (affiliated to Delhi Volleyball Association) have submitted their consent on behalf of residents of Naharpur that they have no objection if layout plan of Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini is modified for increasing the area of the park at Block E-2 and relocate the residential plots bearing No. 44, 45 & 46. (page 171- 172/C) Allottee of plot No. 46 has submitted his consent vide letter dated 27.8.2021 for allotment of alternate plot i.e plot NO. 106, Block E-1 (as 1st preference) and plot No. 111, Block E-1 (as 2nd preference) in lieu of plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. page 173-174/C In view of above, Addl Commr (Plg) has requested to examine the request of the allottee of plot No. 46 for allotment or plot No. 106/111 in Block E-1 and convey about the possibility of allotment of alternate plot to the allottee as per his request. He has further requested examine the financial implication involved in the relocation of plot No. 46 and also the cost liable to be paid by the allottee of plot No. 45 for allotment 15:18 of alternate plot in lieu of the conveyance deed already executed for under reference plot. In the end Addl Commr (Plg) has requested to convey the allottee any cost to be paid by him. In this regard it is stated that a meeting was held by Member (Admn & LM) on 10.9.2021 and attended by Commissioner, LD-I and Director, Planning Sh Vikas Verma to discuss on the issue of allotment of another plot to the allottee of plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. It was informed that the allottee has submitted his consent for allotment of plot No. 106, Block E-1 (as 1st preference) and plot No. 111, Block E-1 (as 2nd preference) in lieu of plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. It was further informed that Plot No. 106, Block E-1, Sector-7, Rohini has been put for auction in the upcoming Phase-13 E-auction. Hence only plot No. 111, Block E-1, Sector-7, Rohini can be considered for allotment in lieu of plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. During the meeting it was pointed out that no such precedence exists for allotment of any other plot in lieu of already allotted plot. It was deliberated that since it is case of public interest, the request of the allottee can be considered. The other aspect discussed during the meeting was of financial implication involved in relocation of allottee of plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini to Plot No. 111, E-1, 15:18 Sector-7, Rohini. Director (Planning) showed the layout plan of E-1 and E-2, Sector-7 Rohini. It was seen that all the plots in question (plot No 46, E-2 and 106, E-1 and plot No.111, E-1 Sector-7 Rohini) fall on same road and are corner plots. That is they are similarly placed and hence there would not be any Financial implication.LOP is placed at 177-182/C As regards payment of stamp duty on the newly allotted plot, it was informed that stamp duty will be payable by the allottee in r/o plot No. 111, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini. As regards reimbursement of stamp duty already paid in r/o plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7 or adjustment of stamp duty already paid with the newly allotted plot, it was decided to refer the case to law Deptt to seek their comments with regards the legal position of stamp duty. In the end, due to public interest, it was decided that to consider the case for allotting plot No. 111, Block E-1, Sector-7, Rohini to the allottee in lieu of plot No. 46, Block E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. Sh Naresh Kumar appeared before the undersigned today on 21.9.2021 and handed over a letter addressed to VC, DDA, Director (RL) and Dy Director, LAB (Resdl). In the said letter he has stated that keeping in mind the social responsibility and welfare of villagers and other stakeholders has agreed to accept alternative plot from DDA. He has further submitted that he agrees to pay stamp 15:18 duty for the registration of alternative plot which will be provided in exchange of Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. Apart from above Sh Naresh Kumar has requested to issue him exchange letter or allotment letter for new plot as the same is required by bank from where he has availed loan in r/o Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini. In the end he has requested to provide all necessary documents which shall be required by him for refund of stamp duty paid for the execution and registration of the CD for plot No. 46, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini. (page 164-168/C) In this regard it is informed if the above proposal is approved, the department shall be issuing him fresh allotment, possession and execution letter in r/o alternate plot being considered for allotment. He can provide the same to his bank from where he has availed loan. As regards refund of stamp duty is concerned it shall be allowed by Sub-Registrar office, Govt of NCT of Delhi as per existant policy and hence he has to approach the concerned office. Now that the issue of stamp duty has been resolved with the fresh application of the applicant, we may in the first instant, if agreed submit the matter before Competent Authority to (1) cancel the allotment of Plot No. 46, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, (2) cancel the CD in r/o plot No. 46, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini and (3) allot plot No. 111, E-2, Sector-7, 15:18 Rohini to the applicant in lieu of plot No. 46, E-1 Sector-7, Rohini in public interest. Submitted please.”

19. Pursuant to the aforesaid proposal, the petitioners were required and gave their consent on 27.08.2021 to give up his plot for allotment of an alternative plot namely, Plot No. 106, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini as first preference and Plot No. 111, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini (“Plot No. 111”) as second preference. The financial implications were also examined by the DDA and DDA came to the conclusion that there were no financial implications as both the plots were almost the same in value.

20. Further noting dated 04.10.2021 is also relevant in the present case and reads as under: “Since the matter is regarding cancellation of CD in r/o Plot NO. 46, E-1, Sector-7, Rohini allotted to the applicant, and then allotting a new alternate plot No. 111, E-2, Sector-7, Rohini we may request the Hon'ble LG to accord his approval for determination/cancellation of CD as a special case and in public interest. Once approved, a declaration from the court under section 31 of Special Relief Act, 1963 shall be obtained directing he Sub-Registrar to make entry in their book of about cancellation of CD.”

21. A perusal of the above shows that the respondent DDA’s department agreed for the cancellation of the Conveyance Deed of the petitioners for Plot No. 46, E-2, Sector 7, Rohini (though inadvertently mentioned as E-

1) and allotment of an alternate plot No. 111, E-1, Sector 7, Rohini (inadvertently mentioned as E-2). For the said purpose, the DDA was also 15:18 to seek approval of the LG for cancellation of Conveyance Deed by filing proceedings under Section 31 of Specific Relief Act, 1963.

22. I may also refer to a letter dated 14.01.2022 written by the Executive Engineer, DDA to the National Commission of Schedule Caste which reads as under:- “OFFICE OF EXECUTUIVE ENGINEER ROHINI MAINTENANCE DIVISION No.8 3rd FLOOR, MADHUBAN CHOWK, ROHINI, DELHI-85. F.No. F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/42 Dated:-14/1/2022 To The Chairman, National Commissioner of Schedule Caste, 5th, Floor, Lok Nayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi-110003. Subject: Encroachment attempt by Local Villagers (Dalit Samaj) on DDA land in Pocket E-1, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi by installing sculpture of Hon'able Dr B.R. Ambedkar as weapon. This is in reference to the vacant DDA Land in Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi which are adjacent to the village abadi of Naharpur (Annexure A). The villagers try to hinder every time DDA or successful bidders of the plots initiate any work on these parcels of land. Recently, the vacant residential plots in the area were put for e-auction by DDA. In order to facilitate the possession 15:18 of these plots, this office had awarded a work for erecting demarcation stones to M/s Tilak Construction Co. vide Letter No. F5(23)A/CS/EE/RMD-8/DDA/2020-21/69 dated 28/01/2021 (Annexure B). During the execution of the work, the local villagers assaulted the workers of the contractors when they were erecting the stones in a vacant land parcel in Block E-1. This land parcel consists of 12 residential plots (Plot Nos. 100 to 111) earmarked as per the LOP placed opposite. Beside these plots, there is a provision of Land for Landless Harijans measuring area 675 sqm and a park measuring area 584 sqm. But, the local villagers claim that the entire land belongs to Harijans and DDA has not acquired it lawfully. After great difficulty, the stones were erected by the contractor but they were uprooted within a couple of days by the local villagers. In order to hinder the process of e-auctioning of the plots, the RWA of Naharpur village filed a Writ Petition in High Court vide W.P.(C) 11775/2019. In the petition, they alleged that DDA has not developed the area around the Naharpur village and there is a lack of basic amenities like park, roads, opens spaces, etc. Due to this petition, the High Court passed an interim order to put a stay on the auction of these plots. But, on further scrutiny of the case, the petition was outrightly dismissed by the court as all the allegations were false and the Interim order was vacated (Annexure C). 15:18 The peripheral services around the vacant plots in E-1 and E-2 have been laid long ago but the internal services were yet to be laid. Therefore, this office had awarded the work for laying of necessary services like road, Internal water pipe line, sewers, for plots recently auctioned to M/s Ashish Upadhyay vide Letter No.F.5(33)A/CS/EE/RMD- 8/DDA/2020-21/295 dated 28.05.2021 (Annexure D). But, the local residents of Naharpur Village have been obstructing the work right from the day work on site began. On 07.06.2021, the villagers didn't allow the contractor to work on the above mentioned plot In E-1. Left with no other choice, the contractor shifted to a plot in E-2 to work there. In this land parcel in E-2, Plot Nos. 44 to 46 are earmarked. The total area of the land parcel is around 1500 sqm. Out of this 3 plots of 200 sqm each have been plotted. The remaining area is meant for a 9 m wide road, park, urinal and dustbin. The area for park allocated in LOP is approximately 470 sqm. There is a volleyball court in this land parcel at present where local villagers play because of which the local villagers did not let the contractor work there too. The arguments led to a physical altercation between Sh. Deepak Kumar (J.E./RMD-8), Sh. Anil Kumar (J.E./RMD-8) and the local villagers. A beat constable was passing nearby who intervened and saved the two J.E. The matter was then reported to the concerned SHO, Sector-7, Rohini. Finally, a written apology was 15:18 submitted by the person who hit Sh. Deepak (J.E./RMD-8) (Annexure E). Since then multiple meetings have been held with the local villagers and telephonic conversations with Sh. Vijender Gupta (MLA and Authority Member/DDA) to resolve the issue but to no avail. The local villagers did not allow the contractor to work on site and threatened him of dire consequences. Then, Sh. Vijender Gupta and local villagers had requested to shift the residential plots in E-2 so that the volleyball court is not affected. A meeting was then held under the Chairmanship of V.C., DDA, during which the Planning Wing had submitted two proposals for modification in L.O.P. so as to accommodate the request of the villagers. Since L.O.P. for Block E-1 to E-5, Sector-7, Rohini may get modified due to the two proposals, the works for laying of services could not be carried out until the final L.O.P. is issued to this office. This office had requested the Planning. Wing to confirm the date by which the modifications in LOP shall be finalized but they refused to commit a specific date. Then, this office received a request from the Agency to foreclose the Agreement and make payments for the work done on site before the work got halted since the S.D.O.C. for the work was 04.10.2021 and there was no clarity as to when the work can resume. Accordingly, the Agreement was closed and the work of laying services is still left. 15:18 Meanwhile, DDA has already e-auctioned the following plots and handed over the physical possession to the successful bidder:  Plot No. 88, 90, 102,104 & 105, Pocket E-1  Plot No. 30, 35,36, 46 & 50, Pocket E-2 The conveyance deeds of these plots have also been executed. On 29.12.2021, the successful bidders of the plots went to construct boundary wall around their plots. But, the local villagers did not allow them to construct the same. Then, on 04/01/2022, field staff of this office reported that the local villagers of Naharpur Village have erected a sign board at the entrance of vacant DDA Land in Block E-1, Sector-7, Rohini. The photo of the sign board declaring the land parcel as a park illegally, is placed opposite. The matter was reported to the SHO, Sector-7 vide Letter No. F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/04 Dated 04/01/2022 (Annexure F). Then, this office requested him to provide police force for dismantling the board illegally erected by the villagers vide Letter No, F.11(5)AE-IV/RMD-8/DDA/05 Dated 05/01/2022 (Annexure G) and Letter No. F.11(5)AE- IV/RMD-8/DDA/10 Dated 10/01/2022 (Annexure H). On 11/01/2022, the field staff noticed that a sculpture of Dr B.R. Ambedkar had been installed by the villagers overnight. The same was immediately reported to the SHO, 15:18 Sector-7 (Annexure 1). Subsequently, Sh.. Ravi Mahajan (A.E.-IV/RMD-8) and Sh. Deepak (AE/RMD[3]) visited the police station and lodged a written complaint on 11/01/2022 (Annexure J). Then, during the night on 12/01/2022, the security guards deployed in the area alerted the local police of some people carrying out tile work around the sculpture erected. They were arrested by the Delhi Police and later on released on bail after due procedure. The undersigned himself met SHO, Sector-7, Rohini on 12/01/2022, who assured him of strict action against the culprits. A few police officials have been deputed around the vacant plot to ensure that no further attempts of encroachment by the local villagers can occur. This is a clear case of attempt by these villagers to encroach DDA land and harm the credibility of DDA, The successful bidders of these plots are not been allowed to start the construction on their plots. Such Incidences directly affect the e-auction to be held in future & down the credibility of the DDA Therefore, it is necessary that appropriate action is taken by DDA against these encroachers. Considering the above mentioned facts, the undersigned requests that the matter should be taken up by SLO (Engg.) against the people arrested by Delhi Police and ensure an exemplary punishment is met out to them so that no other person dares to make such an attempt in the future. Submitted for necessary action please. 15:18 Executive Engineer RMD-8/DDA…”

23. A perusal of the aforesaid letter clearly demonstrates that the proposal for exchange of Plot No. 46 did not originate from the petitioners. The contemporaneous notings and documents and particularly Noting Nos. 16 and 17 of the documents received through RTI shows that it was rather the DDA itself, pursuant to deliberations held with the MLA/Authority Member of DDA, which proposed that the petitioners surrender the originally allotted plot, Plot No. 46, in lieu of an alternate plot and it was also the stand of DDA that the said Plot No. 46 was not suitable for residential purposes. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners ever sought to exchange the plot on their own volition.

24. The learned counsel for DDA has sought to rely on paragraph Nos. 15 and 19 of its Counter Affidavit and stated that the allotment of an alternate plot after execution of Conveyance Deed was impermissible under the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (“Nazul Rules, 1981”). However, she has failed to point out any specific provision wherein the same is prohibited. In such a scenario, the argument that the allotment of an alternate plot is impermissible cannot be accepted.

25. The learned counsel of the petitioners contends that the present case is covered by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. There was a clear and unequivocal representation on behalf of DDA that if the petitioners surrendered Plot No. 46 an alternate plot would be allotted to them. Now, DDA cannot be allowed to go back on its representation. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel was discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 15:18 State of H.P. v. Kundlas Loh Udyog, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 932. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

26. The aforesaid principles governing the doctrine of promissory estoppel apply in the present case. 26.[1] Firstly, DDA has made a clear, unequivocal representation for exchange of Plot No. 46. The proposal originated from the DDA itself as the said plot could not be used for residential purposes and thus, was to be merged with the adjoining playground. 26.[2] Secondly, the representation made by DDA was made with the intention to establish a legal relationship between the parties. The petitioners had surrendered an already allotted plot for substitution by another residential plot. 26.[3] Thirdly, the petitioners acted on the said representation. The petitioners had already invested a substantial sum, i.e. approximately

6.41 Crores towards the purchase of the plot and had also availed a financial loan for the said purpose. Since the DDA was actively proposing allotment of an alternate plot, the petitioners did not and could not carry out any construction or could not put the originally allotted plot to any beneficial use. Hence, the petitioners, based on the promise of DDA for an alternate plot, have altered their position by not utilising the originally allotted plot, Plot No. 46. The same is well documented in the official record of the DDA. Faced with the choice given by DDA and the conditions posed by the local villagers, the petitioners in order to avoid prolonged uncertainty accepted the proposal despite the alternate plot being comparatively 15:18 smaller in size. The petitioners altered their position and agreed to give up their right in Plot No. 46 solely on the faith of representation made by the DDA to allot an alternate plot in lieu of Plot No. 46. Acting upon the said representation, the petitioners also furnished consent letters dated 27.08.2021 and 21.09.2021 consenting to such alternate allotment. The petitioners gave up their right in the said Plot No. 46. Furthermore, the petitioners did not pursue any litigation in furtherance of acquiring Plot No. 46, rather all the actions of the petitioners were with respect to acquiring Plot NO. 111. The petitioners have acted to their detriment by foregoing their rights in Plot No. 46 and waiting for several years in expectation of the alternate allotment. Having induced the petitioners to alter their position, DDA cannot be permitted to resile from its representation. 26.[4] DDA has failed to point out how the said allotment of alternate plot is prohibited by any statutory prohibition or overriding public interest at large. Nothing has been placed on record on behalf of DDA to demonstrate any justification for departure from its previous stance of allotment of alternate plot. The DDA has also failed to show as to how the allotment of Plot No. 111 would upset the scheme of Nazul Rules, 1981.

27. The case, therefore, is squarely covered by the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel. Allowing DDA to go back on its promise would result in manifest injustice to the petitioners. DDA is bound to honour its representation.

28. Further, Note No. 17 categorically mentions that Plot No. 46 is not fit for residential purposes and in light of the same the petitioners were 15:18 requested to give up the same in lieu of an alternate plot. Subsequently, DDA contends that since Plot No. 46 has already been allotted to the petitioners, no alternate plot can be allotted. Even though it is the stance of DDA that Plot No. 46 is not fit for residential purposes, the same is being given to the petitioners as a residential property. In the light of the above facts, DDA cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.

29. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and DDA is directed to allot the alternate Plot No. 111, Block No. E-1, Sector 7, Rohini to the petitioners or in the alternative any other residential plot of similar size and value in the same vicinity as an alternate to Plot No. 46, Pocket E-2, Sector-7, Rohini.

30. Upon such allotment and execution of Conveyance Deed for the alternate plot, the Conveyance Deed dated 16.04.2021 executed in favour of petitioners for Plot No. 46 shall stand cancelled and possession thereof shall be deemed to have reverted back to the DDA.

31. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JASMEET SINGH, J. JULY 16th, 2026/(MU) 15:18