Full Text
JUDGMENT
DHARAM RAJ ..... Petitioner
For the Petitioner : Mr S.N. Kalra, Advocate : MrYudhvir Singh Chaudhary.
For the Respondent : Mr Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with
: MsAnubha Bhandari, MrJatinfor UOI.
: Ms Arti Bansal, MrSoumavaKarmakar, : Ms Madhuri Dhengra for DDA.
: Mr D.K. Chaubey, along with : Applicant for applicants in CM APPL No.
:1901/2016
1. The controversy involved in the present petition relates to an additional strip of land admeasuring 100 sq. yards located adjacent to the property bearing No. 44, Ram Puri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereafter referred to as „the Additional Land‟). The petitioner is in occupation of the Additional Land and has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the same be regularized in his favour. 2019:DHC:1264
2. The petitioner impugns a notice dated 05.09.2007, calling upon the petitioner to remedy the breaches in respect of the Additional Land. The petitioner also impugns a letter dated 22.01.2008, whereby he has been called upon to remove encroachment on the Property. The petitioner had deposited a sum of ₹6000/- for regularizing the allotment of the Additional Land, which was returned by respondent no.2 (L&DO) under the cover of a letter dated 26.12.2007. The petitioner has also impugned the same in the present petition. Factual Background
3. In the year 1951, Sh Dario Singh (the petitioner‟s father) was allotted a plot of land admeasuring 104 sq. yards @ 10.50 per sq. yards. The lease deed in respect of the said property (property bearing No. 44 Ram Puri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi – hereafter „the Property‟) was executed in favour of Sh Dario Singh in the year 1968. It is stated that the Property was a corner property and the Additional Land, which was adjacent to the Property was also occupied by Sh Dario Singh, even though he had no right, title or interest in the same.
4. The petitioner states that several other corner plots also had adjacent strips of lands similar to the Additional Land. The owners of all such corner properties made representations for allotment of the additional strips of land adjacent to their respective properties. Apparently, the said representations were accepted and the L&DO issued letters to various allottees of corner properties offering them allotment of the additional strips of land adjacent to the land leased to them. A Memorandum dated 07.12.1970 to the aforesaid effect was also issued to the petitioner‟s father. In terms of the said memorandum, the L&DO offered the additional strip of land on the condition that it would be included as a part of the original property (the Property). It was stipulated that the allottee would not be permitted to construct a building independently, or, as an extension on the Additional Land, or, put the said land to use without getting approval of the local body. Sh Dario Singh was also called upon to pay a sum of ₹6000/- as cost of the Additional Land, which was computed at ₹60/- per sq. yard. The said Memorandum indicated that a lease deed in a form duly approved by the Government of India would be executed in respect of the AdditionalLand. The said memorandum also stipulated that the offer contained therein was valid for a period of fifteen days and it expressly provided that if the said offer was not accepted within the said period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of the letter, the same would be deemed to have been withdrawn.
5. It is stated that Sh Dario Singh as well as other allottees of corner properties opposed the proposal of charging ₹60 per sq yard and made a representation for the same to be reduced.
6. Sh Dario Singh expired on 21.04.1980.
7. In September, 1981, the petitioner received a letter from theDepartment of Rehabilitation, Government of India, communicating the decision to transfer the additional strip of land to the lessee/allottee of the Property at the rate of ₹500 per sq. yard on the terms and conditions as stated therein. These conditions included a condition requiring the allottee to deposit the sum of ₹50,000/towards the cost of the additional land within a period of six weeks. It was further clarified that if the said deposit was not made, the offer would be deemed to have been withdrawn automatically.
8. It is stated that the petitioner and other holders of corner tenements filed a Civil Suit for regularization of the additional strips of land on a payment of ₹6000/- and also sought an injunction in this regard. It is stated that this suit was subsequently withdrawn in the year 1989. The petitioner states that even during the pendency of the suit, the petitioner as well as other similarly placed persons continued to make repeated representations to the concerned authorities for regularizing the additional strips of land adjacent to their respective properties.
9. On 11.03.1992, the petitioner deposited a sum of ₹6000/- with respondent no.1. It is stated that thereafter in the year 1994-1995, the petitioner carried out some additions on the ground floor and the first floor of certain construction which was carried out on the Additional Land.
10. On 01.06.2007, the petitioner applied for conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold and deposited a sum of ₹14,800/towards conversion fees. Thereafter, sometime in September, 2007 the petitioner received the breach notice dated 24.08.2007/05.09.2007, which is impugned herein. The said notice was followed by a letter dated 26.12.2007, refunding the amount of ₹6000/- deposited by the petitioner for regularization of the Additional Land.
11. On 22.01.2008, the petitioner received a copy of the letter sent by the L&DO to the Deputy Commissioner,Municipal Corporation of Delhi, calling upon the Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachment on the Additional Land. Discussion and Conclusion
12. It is the petitioner‟s case that he is entitled to regularization of the Additional Land in his favour. In addition, the petitioner claims that the conversion of the Property (land measuring 104 sq. yards – No. 44 Rampuri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji, New Delhi) cannot be withheld on account of the controversy relating to the Additional Land. The petitioner has also submitted that in several other cases, allottees of corner tenements had been allotted the additional strips of land adjacent to their respective properties. The petitioner claims that he is also entitled to be treated on parity with such allottees.
13. There is no dispute that the Additional Land belongs to the Government of India and the petitioner has illegally occupied the same. It is apparent from the facts that on two occasions, respondent nos. 1 and 2 had offered to allot the Additional Land to the petitioner/his predecessor – once on 07.12.1970 and thereafter, on 31.08.1981. On both occasions, the petitioner/his predecessor had failed to accept the said offer within the stipulated time and, having failed to accept the same and pay the requisite cost, the petitioner can claim no right over the Additional Land.
14. The only issue that requires examination is whether the petitioner is entitled to claim allotment of the Additional Land on the basis of the current policy. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had issued a circular dated 07.01.2003, whereby it was recommended that any vacant piece of land which is adjacent to a plot of land allotted to any lessee may be allotted to the lessee at market rates. The petitioner contends that in view of the said Circular, the petitioner is entitled to acquire the Additional Land at market rates.
15. In addition to the above, it was also contended that respondents had allotted such additional strips of land to similarly placed allottees and, therefore, the petitioner could not be discriminated against and was required to be treated at par with such allottees.
16. The said contentions are unmerited. The Circular dated 07.01.2003 issued by the DDA, is wholly inapplicable to the properties in question since the land is not under the control of the DDA, butis under the control of the L&DO. Respondent no.1 has also issued guidelines dated 23.05.2000, for allotment of additional strips of unutilized lands adjacent to already allotted plots in rehabilitation colonies. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.1 placing the said guidelines on record. In terms of the said guidelines, preference is to be given to keep such additional strips of land as green areas. It is further provided that in case such strips of land can be put to independent use, then such properties can be put to auction or other utilization. However, preference would be given to develop the same as green areas.
17. In terms of the aforesaid guidelines, the L&DO has earmarked the Additional Land for being used as “open space/Totlot”. In terms of the Master Plan, a “TotLot” is defined as a small playground for children. In view of the given policy, the decision of the L&DO to use the Additional Land as an open space or a playground for children, cannot be faulted. The petitioner‟s case that he is entitled to allotment of the Additional Land is, thus, unmerited and is liable to be rejected.
18. Insofar as the petitioner‟s contention that he is required to be treated at par with other allottees who have been allotted additional strips of land is concerned, the L&DO has filed an affidavit affirming that the Department of Rehabilitation had allotted additional strips of land in two cases. One pertaining to the strip of land adjacent to property No. 72 and the other relating to strip of land adjacent to plot No. 62 in the same locality.
19. In this regard it is clarified that the additional strip of land adjacent to property No. 72 was allotted in compliance with the order dated 05.01.1989 passed by this Court in C.W.P.789/1974 captioned Smt Purnima Deb v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and Ors. A perusal of the said judgment indicates that the petitioner therein had applied on 08.05.1970 for allotment of the additional strip of land at the reserve price pursuant to the instructions dated 23.02.1970. The petitioner‟s request was not acceded to as, at the material time, it was found that the strip of land was between two quarters, namely, quarter no. 72 and 73, and the petitioner was called upon to acquire the property by way of an open auction. As is apparent, the facts in that case are materially different. In the present case, the petitioner‟s predecessor/petitioner was offered allotment of the Additional Land on two occasions but the said offer was not accepted.
20. The additional strip of land adjacent to property No. 62, Rampuri, Harijan Colony, Kalkaji was allotted in compliance with the decision in Suit No. 256/1988. In that case, the plaintiff had deposited a sum of ₹10,000/- pursuant to the offer made in terms of the letter dated 31.01.1981. The plaintiff had claimed that in terms of the policy instructions dated 24.10.1961 the petitioner was entitled to pay the 20% of the reserve price as an initial installment and the balance in seven equated annual installments. The plaintiff‟s case that he was entitled to pay the balance of ₹40,000/- in installments was accepted. The petitioner‟s case cannot be treated in parity with this case as well,because he/his predecessor had not accepted the offer made by the respondent for allotment of additional land.
21. The petitioner‟s request for conversion of the Property from leasehold to freehold has not been accepted on the ground that the petitioner has encroached upon the Additional Land. The said decision cannot be faulted as it is in conformity with the respondent‟s policy not to allow conversion in cases where the lessees have encroached upon public land.
22. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J