Back
1968 Supreme(Del) 198
High Court Of Delhi
R.P.KAPUR,ICS (RETD.) - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF COMMISSIONER - Respondent
Decided On : 12/10/1968
A person who owns a "residential plot", as defined in an agreement governing a scheme for Large Scale Acquisition, Development, and Disposal of land, is not entitled to the allotment of a developed residential plot under the scheme.
Headnote:
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - LAND ACQUISITION - DEVELOPMENT AND DISPOSAL OF LAND - RESIDENTIAL PLOT - INTERPRETATION OF AGREEMENT - OWNERSHIP OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT - ENTITLEMENT TO ALLOTMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of a registered Co-operative Society, challenged the refusal of the respondents to allot him a developed residential plot under a scheme for Large Scale Acquisition, Development, and Disposal of land in Delhi. The petitioner claimed that he did not own a "residential plot" within the meaning of the agreement governing the scheme, as he only held a share in a plot of land that had not been fully developed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner did hold a "residential plot" within the meaning of the agreement, as the land he owned had been deemed to have been approved for development by a previous High Court judgment. The court found that the petitioner had not developed the land despite having the opportunity to do so and that he was not entitled to claim a developed residential plot under the scheme.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner held a "residential plot" within the meaning of the agreement governing the scheme for Large Scale Acquisition, Development, and Disposal of land in Delhi. 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a developed residential plot under the scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the term "residential plot" in the agreement to mean a plot of land that had been approved for development and had been fully developed in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 2. The court held that the petitioner's share in the land, which had been deemed to have been approved for development by a previous High Court judgment, constituted a "residential plot" within the meaning of the agreement. 3. The court found that the petitioner had not developed the land despite having the opportunity to do so and that he was not entitled to claim a developed residential plot under the scheme.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, holding that he did not have an existing cause of action for the relief prayed for. The court noted that the petitioner may have a cause of action to seek relief if the Letters Patent Appeal against the previous High Court judgment was allowed and the petitioner's plot of land was no longer deemed to be approved for development.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a member of a registered Co-operative Society, the Secretary of which is respondebt. No. 3. The land of the Society was acquired by the Union of India. In accordance with the Government s scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of land in Delhi", the President of India entered into an agreement (Anenxure R-l to the written statement of respondents I and 2), the relevant terms of which are as follows :- Clause No. 1 : The Co-operative Society was firstly to prepare a lay-out plan and get it sanctioned by the proper Municipal or other Authorities, and secondly the said Society was to carry out and complete to the satisfaction of the Chief Commissioner, at its own cost and expense, development including metalling of streets, provision of sewers and drains, water and electric mains, amenities and other conveniences in and on the said land, in accordance with the lay-out plan. Clause VIII : Upon the completion of the development of land, the President will grant a lease to the Society of such "residential plots" as may be determined by the Chief Commissioner in his absolute discretion. Clause XV (a) After the Execution and registration of the lease, the Society shall sub-lease one "residential plot" to each of its members who or whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependants relatives including unmarried children does not own, in part, on free-hold or lease-hold basis, any residential plot or house in the urban areas of Delhi, New Delhi or Delhi Cantonement,. and who may be approved by the Chief Commissioner. Clause XV (b) A member of the Society to whom a residential plot will be sub-leased as berein provided is hereinafer referred to as "the Sub-Lessee", and the plot to be sub-leased to him as "the said residential plot". Clause XVI : If any of the residential plots is not subleased. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the Society shall forthwith surrender such residential plots to the President, Clause XVII (a) : The Society shall guarantee that every sub-lessee shall within two years of the commencement of the sublease and after obtaining sanction to the building plan, erect upon the said residential plot a residential building for private dwelling with the requirsite and proper walls, sewers and drains and other convenienes in accordance with the sanctioned building plan
( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 2, who is the Housing Commissioner of the Delhi Administration, by his letter dated 24th November, 1966, Annexure III to the Writ Petition, informed the petitioner that the petitinner owns a residential plot in Delhi as per the deed of agreement which is Annexure I to the Writ Petition read with the High Court Judgment (in C. W. 211-D of 1962 decided on 7th October, 1965), and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the allotment of a developed residential plot as a member of the Cooperative Society under the scheme of Large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, unless the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Delhi Administration/municipal Corporation of Delhi is accepted by the Appellate Court.
( 3 ) THE petitioner contends that at best he holds only land as per the agreement Annexure 1, but not a "residential plot" within the meaning of Clause XV (a) of the agreement Annexure R 1. Therefore, the refusal of respondents I and 2 to allot a residential plot to him is illegal and should be quashed by this Court. The defence of respondents 1 and 2 is that the petitioner holds a residential plot within the meaning of Clause XV (a) of Annexure R-ion a proper construction of the agreement as in Annexure I of the Writ petition read with the judgment of the High Court referred to above.
( 4 ) THE only question for decision, therefore, is whether the petitioner holds a "residential plot" within the meaning of Clause XV (a) of Annexure R-1 to the written statement of respondents 1 and 2.
( 5 ) A persual of the relevant Clauses of Annexure R-1, which have been qu
