Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th September, 2023
PREM BABU ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sharvan Dev, Advocate with petitioner in-person.
Through: Ms. Shahana Farah and Ms. Komal Sorout, Advocates for DDA/R-2 via video-conferencing.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
JUDGMENT
By way of the present petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2/Delhi Development
Authority (‘DDA’) to allot an alternative plot/flat to the petitioner in- lieu of his tenement, being a jhuggi bearing No. T-2187C, Faiz Road, Ashoka Pahari, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, which was demolished by respondent No. 2 sometime in 2001, as detailed hereinafter.
2. Notice on this petition was issued on 14.09.2016; consequent whereupon DDA filed its counter-affidavit dated 31.05.2017. Rejoinder dated 10.01.2018 was also filed by the petitioner to that counter-affidavit.
3. Mr. Sharvan Dev, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Shahana Farah, learned counsel for the DDA have been heard in the matter. Written submissions have also been filed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the DDA. Petitioner’s Submissions
4. Mr. Dev has drawn attention to communication dated 16.08.2001 issued by the DDA to the petitioner, offering to allot to him a plot/flat as part of the Rehabilitation Policy of the DDA, a copy of which is Annexure-P[3] to the petition.
5. Counsel submits that the petitioner’s name, as one of the persons who was occupying the tenements on Faiz Road, Ashoka Pahari, Karol Bagh, New Delhi also stands confirmed by Survey Report dated 04.06.2002, a copy of which has been placed on record by DDA vide Annexure R-2/2 along with its counter-affidavit. It is pointed-out that the petitioner’s name appears at
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ serial No. 247 of the survey report, he was entitled to alternate │ │ allotment. However, communication dated 16.08.2001 clearly │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed │ │ By:DIVYA SHARMA W.P.(C) 89/2016 Page 8 of 11 │ │ stipulated that an applicant for allotment must pay the requisite │ │ charges within 10 days of the issuance of that communication. │ │ On the petitioner’s own reckoning, he first attempted to pay the │ │ requisite charges of Rs.7,000/- vide Demand Draft dated │ │ 27.11.2001, evidently much after the expiry of the 10-day │ │ time-frame stipulated in communication dated 16.08.2001. Here │ │ again, on the petitioner’s own admission, he did not actually │ │ pay the charges, since he says the DDA refused to accept the │ │ money. In fact, the charges were never ever paid even │ │ thereafter and the same position obtains today; │ │ 22.4. The petitioner is also unable to show that he ever filed a formal │ │ application with the DDA seeking allotment of an alternate │ │ tenement. He cites a certain affidavit and other documents that │ │ he filed with the DDA, but he never made any formal │ │ application for the purpose; │ │ 22.5. Furthermore, the petitioner relies upon Minutes of Meeting │ │ dated 05.06.2002 and 10.06.2002, which he says show that the │ │ DDA had approved the allotment of an alternate tenement in- │ │ lieu of removing properties Nos. T-2323 to T-2068 – which the │ │ petitioner says includes property No. T-2187C – and he asserts │ │ his claim based on those minutes. The petitioner however fails │ │ to notice that the same minutes also say that the DDA’s plan for │ │ allotment in-lieu of tenement Nos. T-2323 to T-2068 was part │ │ of the initial action plan, which however could not be │ │ implemented since some affected persons went to court and │ │ obtained a stay order against demolition of their tenements. The │ └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
fact all family members of the petitioner,
│ │ namely his real brothers and the father; but none of them have been │ │ granted any alternate plot or flat by the DDA. │ ├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ 6. Counsel submits that pursuant to communication dated 16.08.2001 │ │ referred to above, vide demand draft/pay order bearing No. 028403 │ │ dated 27.11.2001 drawn in favour of DDA, the petitioner sought to │ │ tender the sum of Rs.7,000/- being the aggregate sum for allotment of │ │ the land alongwith advance license fee for 10 years, as was indicated │ │ in the said communication; however, the DDA refused to accept the │ │ money. │ │ Signature Not Verified │ │ Digitally Signed │ │ By:DIVYA SHARMA W.P.(C) 89/2016 Page 2 of 11 │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────�
��
23. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the view that firstly, there is inordinate and unexplained delay in the petitioner invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court, which delay appears to have been by reason of tardiness and indolence on the petitioner’s part. The writ petition accordingly suffers from delay and laches[2]. Secondly, it appears that the petitioner never made a formal application to the DDA seeking allotment of an alternate tenement under their policy; and most importantly, nor did he ever pay the requisite charges as required by communication dated 16.08.2001 within the time stipulated therein or even thereafter. Thirdly, it also remains a matter of factual dispute as to whether the petitioner was at all residing in tenement No. T-2187C, or whether that tenement was at all demolished. Needless to add that such factual matters, which have been seriously contested, are not amenable to adjudication in the writ jurisdiction of this court.[3] cf. State of M.P. vs. Nandlal Jaiswal (supra) Dwarka Prasad Agarwal vs. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230 at para 28; State of Rajasthan vs. Bhawani Singh, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 306 at para 7; Kamaljeet Bajwa & Ors. vs. Government of NCT of Delhi &Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4192 at para 56
24. For all the above reasons, this court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the petitioner’s favour in the present case.
25. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed-of.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J