Back
2008 Supreme(Del) 1084
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Gita Mittal, J.
Dr. Vijay Kumar Gupta - Appellants
Vs.
Delhi Development Authority and Anr. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16830/2006
Decided On: 24.10.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Sanjay Sharawat, Sunil Verma, Advs. and Party-in-Person
For Respondents/Defendant:Yeeshu Jain, Adv. Respondent No. 1, O.P. Arya and Y. Sharma, Advs. for Respondent No. 2
The DDA was negligent in executing the lease deed in favor of the impostor and that the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to compensatory damages for deprivation of his property.
Headnote:
WRIT PETITION - ALLOTMENT OF PLOT - DDA - FRAUD - IMPERSONATION - COMPENSATORY DAMAGES - RIGHT TO SHELTER - PUBLIC LAW REMEDY - REST IPSA LOQUITUR - NEGLIGENCE - STRICT LIABILITY - CONSTITUTIONAL TORT - PUBLIC WRONG - EXEMPLARY DAMAGES - LIMITATION. The petitioner was allotted a plot by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1985. He paid the requisite amount and took possession of the plot in 1988. In 1996, the DDA executed a registered lease deed in favor of an impostor who had impersonated the petitioner. The impostor then sold the plot to the respondent No. 2, who constructed a house on it. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot and compensatory damages for violation of his fundamental rights. The court held that the DDA was negligent in executing the lease deed in favor of the impostor and that the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to compensatory damages for deprivation of his property. The court awarded the petitioner a lumpsum amount of Rs. 55,000/- as costs of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was allotted a plot by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in 1985. He paid the requisite amount and took possession of the plot in 1988. In 1996, the DDA executed a registered lease deed in favor of an impostor who had impersonated the petitioner. The impostor then sold the plot to the respondent No. 2, who constructed a house on it. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking allotment of an alternative plot and compensatory damages for violation of his fundamental rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the DDA was negligent in executing the lease deed in favor of the impostor and that the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to compensatory damages for deprivation of his property. The court awarded the petitioner a lumpsum amount of Rs. 55,000/- as costs of the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the DDA was negligent in executing the lease deed in favor of the impostor? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensatory damages for deprivation of his property?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the DDA was negligent in executing the lease deed in favor of the impostor because it failed to take adequate steps to verify the identity of the person who was impersonating the petitioner. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to an alternative plot because he had been deprived of his property through no fault of his own. 3. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to compensatory damages for deprivation of his property because the DDA's negligence had caused him to suffer financial loss.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition to the extent that the DDA was directed to consider the petitioner for allotment of a plot in the similar colony and on the same terms and conditions as the plot bearing No. 36, Pocket II, Block B, Sector 16, Rohini admeasuring 60 sq. meters allotted to him, within a period of eight weeks from today. In case there is no such plot available in Pocket 11, Block `B, Sector 16, Rohini, Delhi, the DDA shall ensure that a nearest plot in the immediate vicinity, is allotted which is similar in value and location. The allotment will be at the rate at which the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid plot No. 36. The court further held that the petitioner would be entitled to be compensated for deprivation of his right, title and interest in the property allotted to him with effect from the date of execution of the conveyance deed on 28th of November, 1996 in favor of an impostor by the DDA. It is further held that the writ petition to the extent that it makes the prayer for award of compensation is not maintainable. It shall therefore be open for the respondent to file a suit or appropriate proceedings in respect thereof. Inasmuch as the entitlement of the petitioner in respect of the compensation has been determined by this judgment, the limitation for filing a suit for compensation shall commence from the date of the present judgment. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to costs of the present petition which are assessed at Rs. 55,000/-. Costs shall be paid to the petitioner within four weeks.
Gita Mittal, J.
.1. By this judgment, I propose to decide this writ petition filed by the petitioner wherein the following relief has been sought:
.(a) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner in lieu of the plot bearing No. 36, Pocket - 2, Block - B, Sector - 16, Rohini, Delhi admeasuring 60 Sq. mtrs. as per the terms and conditions of the original allotment and in the same sector or in any other similarly developed sector and location; and
.(b) Pass an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a compensatory damages quantified as Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) for violation of the fundamental right by non delivery of the plot in question till date despite allotment being made in 1985 and possession delivered in 1988.
2. There is no material dispute by the respondents to the facts placed by the petitioner before this court. It is an admitted position that the Delhi Development Authority, respondent No. 1 herein, announced a scheme for allotment of plots in 1981 in new project which was named as "Rohini Residential Scheme" in the North-West part of Delhi.
3. The petitioner applied for allotment of a plot of 60 sq. meters size on 25th March, 1981 and also deposited Rs. 5,000/- as earnest money as required by receipt No. 02683 of this date with the respondent No. 1. In a computerised draw of lots held on 25th March, 1985 by the DDA, the petitioner was successful in drawing a plot bearing No. 36, Pocket II, Block B, Sector 16, Rohini admeasuring 60 sq. meters (hereinafter referred to as the `plot). The demand-cum-allotment letter issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner required him to make payment of the balance amount of Rs. 5,702/- as per schedule by the 31st May, 1985 while the total cost of the plot was fixed at Rs. 12,011/-. The petitioner remitted the requisite amount of Rs. 5,702/- vide a demand draft admittedly received by the DDA on 3rd August, 1985.
4. The petitioner made applications dated 14th October, 1987 and 15th October, 1987 to the DDA to hand over the possession of the plot along with the requisite documents. By a communication of 31st October, 1988, the DDA informed the petitioner of its intention of handing over possession of the plot and he was required to appear for this purpose at the site office. The petitioner reached the site office of the respondent No. 1 on 8th December, 1988 as required where physical possession of the plot was handed over to him. The DDA also issued the possession letter along with the lay out plan of the plot to the petitioner.
.5. On the 2nd of July, 1996, the respondent no1 required the petitioner to furnish additional documents including the ration card, photographs etc. for preparation of a lease deed. These documents were furnished by the petitioner to the DDA on the 12th May, 1997.
6. The petitioner has claimed that he submitted all the required documents to the DDA on 12th May, 1997 and thereafter kept awaiting receipt of the lease deed papers and information with regard to the time and date for execution of the lease deed at Mandsaur, M.P. where he was permanently residing. Despite passage of of about one and a half years, no information was received by the petitioner from the DDA. The petitioner states that he came to Delhi on 11th February, 1999 to meet his relatives and on 15th February, 1999 went to see his plot. To his shock, a double storey building had been raised on the plot and the name plate of Mr. S.N. Swami, respondent No. 2 herein, was affixed on the entrance gate. The respondent No. 2 did not give any satisfactory responses to the petitioner and only informed him that he had bought the plot from its owners.
7. The petitioner immediately submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police of the Crime Branch, ITO, Delhi on 16th February, 1999.
