Jasbir Singh v. Delhi Development Authority

14. First things first, the claim of the petitioner for restoration of the initial plot of land, based on the alleged non-receipt of the demandcum-allotment letter dated 02.11.1993, was unequivocally rejected by this Court in W.P.(C) No.201/2010. The plea of the petitioner that his father had sent an intimation to the DDA regarding the change of his residence vide letter dated 26.04.1993 was not accepted. Notably, this Court found that the letter dated 26.04.1993 appeared to be fabricated, holding as follows: -

8. Thirdly, counsel for the Petitioner finds it hard to explain how the letter dated 18th March 1998 was accompanied by a copy of the DAL when according to the Petitioner it was not received by his late father.

9. In the circumstances, this Court is unable to interfere with the decision taken by the DDA not to accede to the Petitioner‟s request for restoration of the allotment.”

15. It is further pertinent to mention here that though the petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 151/2011, the same also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2011, which order reads as under: -

16. Faced with the aforesaid position, the learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on the notings from the file of the then Principal Commissioner (L&D and LM) (Annexure P-8), wherein it is recorded as under:- “Shri Jasbir Singh has been representing and appearing in my public hearing a number of times regarding allotment of plot under Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981. DDA cancelled the allotment on account of non response by the petitioner that he had not responded to the demand-cum-allotment letter issued on 2nd November, 1993. The petitioner has denied having receipt of the demand-cum- allotment letter as he had moved away from the earlier residence. The petitioner in turn has been indicating that he had intimated change of address on 26.4.1993, which DDA denies of having received. DDA has further taken stand that a copy of the house-tax bill of 15th September, 1997 was delivered at his old address which conclusively demonstrates that the demand-cum-allotment letter was delivered and was received by the petitioner. The petitioner had moved the High Court and High Court dismissed the petition on the following grounds:-

(i) that the petitioner had indicated the details of the allotment in his letter dated 25.4.1993, though, it was more than 6 months prior to the date of allotment. As per laid down practice of DDA once the draws were concluded the results are displayed much before the actual allotment letters are issued, it is difficult to take a stand that petitioner could not have possessed the information about the details of the allotment while indicating the change of address.

(ii) The second ground that the house tax challan was collected by Shri Rajinder Gupta who delivered the same to the petitioner and by the same analogy the allotment letter could also have been collected and delivered by (Shri Rajinder Gupta). It is also difficult to take a stand that given the passage of time between 1993 and 1997, whether the persons who collected and gave the communications over time are the same or: different. It is also to be noted that house tax receipt was ironically for the plot of land allotted to the petitioner by DDA and it is not an assessment order in respect of property which has been occupied by him earlier.

(iii) As regards communication of 18th

March, 1998 is concerned, there is no reference in the petition of the petitioner that he has enclosed a copy of the demand-cumallotment letter. It is difficult to ascertain as to how it got mentioned before the High Court. Going by the above, it is felt that the case requires as review:- [a] On terms of the legal position emerging after directions of the Hon‟ble High Court. It may be pointed out that in its final order of August 12, 2011, the court acknowledged that the petitioner submitted to the court the registered Sale Deed of 10th October, 1991 demonstrating that he is not the owner of the premises after that date. However, the court took a stand that petitioner failed to inform DDA about the change of address. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt has been given to DDA. However, from the records, it is not made out that DDA has any proof of delivery of demand-cumallotment letter. If DDA can deny receipt of the application from the petitioner for change of address, the petitioner is similarly placed in denying the receipt of the demand-cum-allotment letter from DDA. Further, DDA could have reminded the petitioner or issued Show Cause Notices for cancellation of the allotment, which was never done. This appears to provide the preponderance of the benefit of doubt in favor of the petitioner. [b] If one goes through the affidavit filed by DDA before the Hon‟ble High Court, there are many contradictions in the affidavit. For instance, para [iv] in the parawise comments indicating that in the communication of 26th April, 1993, the petitioner had intimated the particulars of his plot whereas allotment letter itself was issued 6 months later. In the same parawise comments, vide sub para (iv) it is contended by DDA that results of all draws conducted by DDA were declared in the leading newspapers from time to time. Prima facie para [iv] and [vi] are contradictory. In the above circumstances, it is felt that this case requires de novo consideration. In the first instance, we shall request CLA for his comments.”

17. Further, reliance is placed on the noting of the Vice Chairman, DDA dated 26.12.2014, which reads as under: - “I have once again gone through the contentions in the file. Though it is a fact that the case has been agitated before the Hon‟ble LG as well as Hon‟ble Court when the applicant‟s intention has been dismissed. I see that Pr. Commissioner (LD) vide his note dated 22.01.2013 (page 64/N) has rightly observed that the applicant had moved out of the address to which demand letter was delivered and he did not received the letter. This is established from the note of the Commissioner (Housing) as at page 62/n as well. In this context, CLA has also opined vide his note at page 61/n that the property in which the letter had been sent had already been sold and hence the letter could not have been received by the present applicant or his father. Under the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the arguments made by the application from time to time. It is requested that the matter may be re-examined and put up afresh.”

18. It appears that the aforesaid note was put up before the then Hon‟ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and it was proposed that the petitioner may be allotted a plot of land under the RRS, which order was communicated to the petitioner on 14.05.2015 which reads as under: - “DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHOIRTY LAND SALES BRANCH (ROHINI) ROOM NO.111, 1st FLOOR, C-3 VIKAS SADAN, INA, NEW DELHI-23 No.F.25(1725)91/LSB(Rohini) 1971 Dated: 14.05.15 To Shri Jasbir Singh S/o Late Shri Sujan Singh R/o B-15, 2nd floor, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar Phase-III, Delhi-110052. Sub: Regarding allotment of alternative plot in lieu of plot No.92, Pkt.21, Sector-24, Rohini under MIG category in Rohini Residential Scheme- Sir, This has reference to your request dated 25.02.2015 on the subject cited above. In this regard I am directed to inform you that the Competent Authority has acceded to the request for allotment of alternative plot in lieu of plot No.92, Pkt.21, Sector-24, Rohini under MIG category in due course. Your faithfully, (Sharat Kumar) Dy.Dir./LSB(Rohini)”

19. However, subsequently, vide letter dated 08.01.2016, he was allotted a Plot No.212, Pocket-A[1], Sector 34, Rohini and upon his further request, he was allotted the subject property in Sector 2 viz. Plot No.97, Pocket-A, Rohini. This was accompanied by allotmentcum-demand letter (provisional) dated 23.08.2016, whereby the petitioner was called upon to make payment of ₹31,67,824/- towards the allotment and take possession after completing the requisite formalities.

20. The long and short of the aforesaid discussion is that the petitioner, without any demur or protest, opted to accept the allotment of the subject property at the prevailing cost at the relevant time consequent to concession afforded to the petitioner as a „special case‟. The possession of the subject property was then taken over by him on 19.10.2016 followed by execution of the conveyance deed on 15.03.2017. It was only subsequently that the petitioner attempted to introduce a new dimension to the case, contending that he should have been charged the premium in accordance with the original demand-cumallotment letter dated 02.11.1993.

21. It is axiomatic that the relief sought in the present writ petition is discretionary. Moreover, the petitioner's past conduct has not been unblemished. This Court's observations regarding his conduct during the first round of litigation have raised doubts about his bona fides.

22. Surprisingly, the DDA officials, in an unprecedented move, reconsidered the allotment of a plot of land in the petitioner's favour at the then-current market rate/premium value. The petitioner did not raise any objections or protests and was instead offered three alternative plots. He accepted the new offer at the prevailing rates and willingly acted upon it, paying the sale consideration without any reservations. There was no bar to the petitioner approaching this Court immediately after the DDA issued the allotment-cum-demand letter dated 23.08.2016.

23. There is merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the DDA that the sale of plots and flats by the DDA is commercial in nature, governed solely by the terms and conditions of the contract willingly executed by the parties. Once the petitioner has changed his position, taken possession of the subject property, and had the conveyance deed executed in his favour, he is neither legally nor equitably entitled to reclaim the premium/sale price. He cannot revert to the status quo ante and seek payment based on the original demand-cum-letter dated 02.11.1993.

24. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 27, 2024