Rekha Gupta v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

1. The present petitions, are second round of litigation by the petitioners 2018:DHC:8499 n and have been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers: "It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon 'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue writ of Certiorari and Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction which the Hon 'ble Court may kindly deem appropriate:

1. To quash /set aside the Impugned order dated 07.04.2015 passed by respondent No.2 by which the claim of petitioner for allotment of alternative residential plot against his acquired land is rejected and

2. To direct the respondent No.1 to recommend the name of thepetitioner to the respondent No.3 (DDA)for allotment ofalternative residential plot in accordance with the law andpolicy ofthe Govt. as per his entitlement.

3. To grant compensation to the petitioner for the harassment caused to him by the respondent No.1 and 2 during the last 11 years.

4. Tofix the responsibility of the officers responsibilityfor the said illegal act and to recover the cost from his salary.

5. To award cost ofthepresentpetition. Any other andfurther relief may also be granted as this Hon'ble Court may kindly deem fit and proper in the interest ofjustice. PrayedAccordingly."

2. The earlier writ petitions being W.P. (C) 4287/2012 and 4294/2012 havebeendisposed of by this Court in terms of the following directions: "I am of the view that much time has elapsed since possession of the petitioner's land. In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to treat the writ petition as a representation and pass an appropriate order as deemed fit in accordance with law. The respondent shall pass a speaking order, and if requested, accord the petitioners as personal hearing in the matter. The order passed will be reasoned order which shall be communicated to the petitioner. In case thepetitioner is still aggrieved, he will be at liberty to approach the Court. It is made clear that the representation be disposed of not later than 31.10.2012. Prior notice will be issued to the petitioner to ascertain as to whether they wish to be heard in person. With this thepetitions stand disposed of."

3. Pursuant thereto the respondents issued the impugned communication ^ dated April 07, 2015 wherein the following has been stated asunder: "In compliance of the directions of the Hon 'ble High Court vide order dated 09.05.2014 the Committee after examination of the documents submitted by the applicant had requested some more documents to be sought from the applicant vide letter dated 31.07.2014 and specifically sought to clarify with regard to status of her occupancy in respect of house NO. 2116, Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi which is situated in the urbanised area. In respect ofthe said letter, the applicant had vide her letter dated 05.08.2014 has submitted that at her request her brother Shri Mohan lal Gupta has applied for mutation of the property in North Delhi Municipal Corporation and the copy ofproperty tax receipt has been W enclosed. However, it was still not been clarified by the applicant under what capacity she has been residing in the said premises. The judgment in the case of "Delhi Administration vs. Jai Singh Kanwar", the Hon'ble Supreme Court ofIndia has categorically reiterated that the object of the policy and the fundamental requirements for making an application requires that a person does not own a house / residential plot / flat, will be entitled for rehabilitation. Therefore, the Committee observed that the applicant has not clarified under what capacity she has been residing in the property No. 2116, Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi which is situated in the urbanised limits. Since the applicantfailed to clarify the occupancy status of above said property, the Committee, therefore, decided to give one more opportunity to the applicant to clarify the status of above said property so that the appropriate decision can be taken by the Committee in this regard. In response to this office letter dated 25.11.2014, the applicant has now informed that the saidproperty belongs to her brother, namely, Shri Mohan Lai Gupta and the mutation in her name is still pending in the North Delhi Municipal Corporation and she is staying in the property in love and affection being a real brother of Shri Mohan Lai Gupta. The reply given by the applicant has been considered and has been found unsatisfactory. It was observed that the applicant's brother movedfor mutation ofthe saidproperty on 04.08.2014 (as per copy of letter addressed to the Asstt. Assessor and Collector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi) (P.126/C) only after the clarification was sought from his office vide letter dated 31.07.2014. The mutation process was not initiated during 21 years after the death ofSmt. Indrawati, the mother of the applicant. There is a bonafied suspicion regarding her ownership occupancy status ofthe saidproperty in which the applicant is living till date. As on date there is no mutation infavour ofSh. Mohan Lai Gupta in respect ofsaid property whichapparently shows that the applicant is havinga legal share in the abovesaidproperty and living as co-sharer in the property. In view of abovefacts / circumstances, the Committee has unanimously viewed that the applicant is suppressing the material facts in order to take the benefit under the Scheme ofLarge Scale Acquisition, Development & Disposal of land in Delhi which is meant for agriculturists who are not having any home / plot except in village abadi area. In view of the facts / circumstances above, the Committee unanimously decided that the applicant is not entitled for allotment of any plot for the purpose of rehabilitation under the said scheme. Therefore, the case is REJECTED. "

4. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed

5. According to him, the property being 2116, Bawana Road, Narela, Delhi having been mutated in favour ofthe brother ofthe petitioners namely Mohan Lai Gupta, the very foundation for the suspicion goes. According to him, the respondents are required to reconsider the request of the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot in accordance with the policy in place. When the matter was listed on July 11, 2018, time was sought by the Counsel for the respondents to take instructions. Mr. Yeeshu Jain and Mr. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents state, the receipt of communication dated March 16, 2017 of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation shall have no bearing on impugned order inasmuch as the said document was not in existence before the Authorities when the impugned communications were issued. In other words, the communication on which i n Mr. Pandey has relied upon, is a subsequent one.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court of the view that these petitions can be disposed of by directing the petitioners herein to submit a certified copy of the communication dated March 16, 2017 of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation addressed to Mohan Lai Gupta said to be the brother of the petitioners herein, to the respondents within 15 days from today, who on receipt of the same, shall consider the said communication and effect thereof, on the application made by the petitioners for allotment of alternative plot and pass a reasoned order. The respondents shall be at liberty to make such enquiries as deem necessary. The said process shall be completed within a period of 12 weeks from today. If the petitioners are still aggrieved by any order to be passed, liberty is with the petitioners to seek such remedy as available in accordance with law.

7. Suffice to state, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the issue and also on contents of the communication dated March 16, 2017..

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J