Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 1152
High Court Of Delhi
NARAIN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 7356 of 1999
Decided On : 12/08/2004
Hari, S.K.Tyagi, S.S.Dalal
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision to withdraw the allotment recommendation could not be sustained as there was no conclusion that the two applications were filed by the petitioner's father, and the petitioner was entitled to the allotment in pursuance of the first application.
Headnote:
Allotment - Land Acquisition - 400 sq. mtrs. - 180-200 sq. mtrs. - Trilok Chand Tyagi v. DDA and Ors. - The court quashed the decision of the respondents to withdraw the recommendation for allotment of a plot against the first application of late Shri Balbir Singh and revived the allotment made in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to the allotment in pursuance of the first application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father's land was acquired, and he made applications for allotment of alternative plots. After his father's death, a complaint was received about two applications, and despite the report showing different thumb impressions, the earlier recommendation was not withdrawn. The petitioner relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of the Court, and the court considered the issue of multiple applications and allotment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no conclusion that the two applications were filed by the petitioner's father and quashed the decision of the respondents to withdraw the recommendation for allotment. The court revived the allotment made in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The issues included the validity of multiple applications, the reliance on a previous judgment, and the withdrawal of the allotment recommendation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the decision to withdraw the allotment recommendation could not be sustained as there was no conclusion that the two applications were filed by the petitioner's father. The court also considered the judgment in Trilok Chand Tyagi v. DDA and Ors. and found that the petitioner was entitled to the allotment in pursuance of the first application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the decision of the respondents, and revived the allotment made in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner was entitled to the allotment in pursuance of the first application.
( 1 ) THE land of the father of the petitioner Shri Balbir Singh located in Badli, Delhi was acquired vide Award dated 10. 11. 1981 and, ihus, he made an application dated 20. 5. 1983 for allotment of an alternative plot under the scheme of the respondents for allotment of such plots on large-scale acquisition of land. The case of Shri Balbir Singh was considered favourably and the recommendation was made by the concerned Department on 31. 7. 1985 for an alternative plot of 400 sq. mtrs.
( 2 ) SHRI Balbir Singh also owned some land in Toganpur, Delhi which was also acquired and it is alleged that Shri Balbir Singh also made an application on 16. 11. 1987 for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of the said land, even though in terms of the proforma to be filled, the concerned person had to disclose whether prior allotment of any plot had been made. This was so since a person could not be allotted more than one plot.
( 3 ) AN offer of allotment was made by DDA on 20. 4. 1990 to Shri Balbir Singh for a plot of 180-200 sq. mtrs. in West Zone in lieu of the application related to acquisition of land in Badli and Shri Balbir Singh deposited a sum of rs. 5,000/- in acceptance of the said offer. Shri Balbir Singh passed away on 8. 11. 1990. The case of the allotment of plot against the land acquired at T6ganpur Village was also processed and apparently a decision was taken to make an allotment to the petitioner. It appears that some complaint was received, by the respondent Department about two applications having been made and this complaint is stated to have been received on 30. 4. 1992. In the meantime, DDA demanded a sum of Rs. 47,200/- in May, 1992 for allotment of plot against the land acquired at Badli, which has been deposited by the petitioner, who is the legal heir of late Shri Balbir Singh.
( 4 ) THE petitioner apparently also came to know about the second allotment in lieu of land acquired at Toganpur and addressed a communication dated 22. 5. 1992 to the Land and Building Department of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi asking them not to process the same and expressed ignorance about how the application came to be made. The petitioner was, however, issued a show-cause notice dated 26. 6. 1992 on the ground that two applications had been filed and DDA was asked to withhold the allotment till further orders. The petitioner replied to the show-cause notice on 13. 7. 1992 denying that his father had ever made a second application. The plea of the ignorance was, however, rejected and recommendation was made on 29. 3. 1994 for DDA to withdraw the recommendation. Thereafter, certain representations were made and the petitioner was asked to visit the office of the Land and Building Department for further verification. The Department referred the two applications to CFSL for comparing the thumb impressions affixed of late Shri Balbir Singh and the report of CFSL shows that the thumb impressions are not the same. Despite this fact, the earlier recommendation was not withdrawn and representations of the petitioner were finally rejected in terms of the impugned letter dated 9. 2. 1998.
( 5 ) IT may be noticed that the petitioner had relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Trilok Chand Tyagi v. DDA and Ors. , 68 (1997) DLT 544 (DB), but according to the respondents, the same was not applicable.
( 6 ) IT may also be noticed that in terms of the original decision dated 29. 3. 1994 the reason for cancellation is stated to be the fact that it could not be believed that the petitioners were ignorant about the second recommendation and the application for withdrawal of the second recommendation was made after he had come to know of the factum of the Department having taken cognizance of the same, though the show-cause notice was issued subsequently.
( 7 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner makes a two-fold submission : firstly, it has not been established that the two appli
