Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHANTI DEVI GUPTA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
Civil Writ 3369 of 1992
Decided On : 04/08/1994
DELHI DEVELOPMENT ACT - SECTION 14 - PUBLIC PASSAGE - ALLOTMENT OF ADDITIONAL LAND - VIOLATION OF NAZUL LAND RULES - LEGALITY OF ALLOTMENT - INTERPRETATION OF KEY PLAN - VARIATION IN SIZE OF PLOT - CONDITIONS FOR ALLOTMENT - EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, owners of a commercial plot in a shopping center, challenged the DDA's decision to allot an additional strip of land to the respondent, who was the allottee of an adjacent plot, for the construction of a link verandah and a basement underneath it. The petitioners contended that the allotment violated the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the allotment of the additional land violated Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules, which required that Nazul land be allotted by public auction. The court also held that the variation in the size of the plot, if any, could have been shown in the lease deed for plot No. 3 executed on 29 May 1992, particularly when the so-called discrepancy was allegedly detected and allotment recommended by way of variation of size of plot No. 3 much prior to the execution of the lease deed in respect of plot No. 3.
Issues: 1. Whether the allotment of the additional land to the respondent violated the Delhi Development Act, 1957, and the Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981? 2. Whether the variation in the size of the plot could have been shown in the lease deed for plot No. 3 executed on 29 May 1992?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the allotment of the additional land violated Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules, which required that Nazul land be allotted by public auction. The court also held that the variation in the size of the plot, if any, could have been shown in the lease deed for plot No. 3 executed on 29 May 1992, particularly when the so-called discrepancy was allegedly detected and allotment recommended by way of variation of size of plot No. 3 much prior to the execution of the lease deed in respect of plot No. 3. 2. The court held that the allotment of the additional land violated Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules, which required that Nazul land be allotted by public auction. The court also held that the variation in the size of the plot, if any, could have been shown in the lease deed for plot No. 3 executed on 29 May 1992, particularly when the so-called discrepancy was allegedly detected and allotment recommended by way of variation of size of plot No. 3 much prior to the execution of the lease deed in respect of plot No. 3.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the allotment of the additional land violated Rule 26 of the Nazul Land Rules, but declined to quash the DDA's decision to transfer the land to the respondent, considering the convenience of the public at large and the undertaking given by the respondent not to cause any obstruction in the verandah in front of the petitioners' building.
( 1 ) BY this petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution the petitioners seek a writ of certioran and mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order calling for records of Plot No. 3, B-Block Local Shoppingcenter-I I, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi and directing respondent No. 1, the Delhidevelopment Authority (for short the DDA) and No. 2, the Union of Indiarespectively not to allot public passage in front of petitioners Plot No. 4 and ifalready allotted, quash the allotment; direct the aforesaid respondents and respondent No. 3, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, not to permit respondent Nos. 4and 5 to carry out any construction or raise any structure on the said public passageand in the basement beneath the public passage.
( 2 ) THE issue involved would appear to be simple though arguments addressed would look rather complex. The dispute concerns a very small strip of landof the size of 8 x 20 leased to respondent No. 4 at a price, for him to construct a linkverandah for the use of the public in the shopping complex so that there is a wholelength of verandah in front of the shops in the complex. This disputed strip of landis of the size in length of the shop premises of respondent No. 4 though it would bein continuation of the verandah in front of the shop of the petitioners. The DDAallotted and gave the leasehold rights of this strip of land to respondent No. 4 at aprice calculated on certain basis with permission to have a basement underneath itwith stipulation that no construction even on the roof of the verandah would bethere, and that the verandah so constructed would be used as public passage. Boneof contention is perhaps the construction of the basement underneath this strip ofland, admeasuring 8 x 20 , and on that account challenge is as to how could thedda give leasehold rights of this strip to respondent No. 4 without there being apublic auction as per law. As to what is the infraction of law involved in the casewe will presently see. But it would at once appear to us that no one would bebenefited by buying this strip of land except respondent No. 4.
( 3 ) WE may now advert to the circumstances leading to the filing of the presentwrit petition:
( 4 ) PETITIONER No. Vs husband purchased leasehold rights in Plot No. 4, b block, Local Shopping Centre-11, Jhilmil, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, admeasuring 89. 189sq. mts. (24 x 40 ), from the DDA in a public auction held on 30/06/1970. Perpetuallease deed in respect thereto was executed in 1972. A two-storeyed building wasconstructed on the said plot in the year 1974. On the death of the original lessee, theperpetual lease was transferred in favour of his widow, petitioner No. 1 in 1986. Petitioner No. 2, a Doctor by profession, is the son of petitioner No. 1 and is runninghis clinic in one of the shops constructed on the said plot.
( 5 ) IN October 1991, the DDA issued a public notice for auction of adjacent Plotno. 3 in the said shopping centre. The size of plot No. 3 mentioned in theadvertisement was 24 x 40 (89. 23 sq. mtr.) and the total floor area, excluding thebasement, was given as 350. 24 sq. mtr. In the auction held on 15/11/1991respondent No. 4 gave the highest bid for a sum of Rs. 22 lakhs approximately. Lease deed in respect of the said plot was executed in favour of respondent No. 4on 29/05/1992 and he thereafter started digging work for making a basement. Noticing that not only the entire plot admeasuring 24 x 40 but also a part of thepublic pavement in front of the said plot had been dug up to have 100 per centbasement, without leaving a two metre distance from their plot, the petitionersappear to have protested and lodged complaints with the DDA and the Police tohave the construction activity stopped but without any success. Alleging thatrespondent Nos. 4 and 5 were constructing basement on the entire plot No. 3,without leaving two metre distance from the petitioners adjacent building on plotno. 4, in violation of the Delhi
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
