Back
2009 Supreme(Del) 1127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SHRI RAVINDER SINGH ………..Appellant
Versus
DDA & ORS. ……..…Respondents
L.P.A. 221/2003
Decided on : October 22, 2009
Mr.Sumit Bansal, Mr.M.G.Vachar, Mr.Ateek Mathur & Mr.Manish Paliwal, Advocates.
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate.
Violation of tehbazari terms disentitles the claimant to discretionary relief, and the MCD's policy governs the allotment of alternative sites on tehbazari.
Headnote:
Allotment - Writ Petition - MCD Act, 1966, Section 3 - DDA Act, 1957, Section 7 - Summary: The court discussed the allotment of a site and the redevelopment scheme of Kingsway Camp. It highlighted the provisions of the MCD Act, 1966, and the DDA Act, 1957, and their implications on the appellant's claim for alternative land. The court directed the MCD to consider the appellant's claim for allotment of an alternative site on tehbazari as per the MCD's policy.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought to quash the allotment of a site and requested an alternative allotment. The site was part of a redevelopment scheme, and the appellant's father had been allotted the site on tehbazari by the MCD.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant violated the terms of tehbazari allotment by constructing a pucca shop and a residential room, disentitling himself to discretionary relief. The court directed the MCD to consider the appellant's claim for alternative land.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's claim for alternative land, violation of tehbazari terms, and the impact of the redevelopment scheme on the site.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's violation of tehbazari terms disentitled him to discretionary relief. It also emphasized the MCD's policy for allotment of alternative sites on tehbazari.
Final Decision: The court directed the MCD to consider the appellant's claim for an alternative site on tehbazari as per the MCD's policy.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.3.2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition was to quash the allotment of the site forming subject matter of the claim by the petitioner in the writ petition to respondents No.4 and 5 with a writ of prohibition to be issued against Delhi Development Authority (DDA) restraining it from dispossessing the petitioner from the site between Shop No.33 and Stall No.53 Wadhwa Market, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
3. An alternative prayer was made that in case the main reliefs asked for were not granted, DDA be directed to allot the site in question to the petitioner.
4. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was tagged along with WP(C) No.776/1997 on account of the fact that the learned Single Judge had expressly stated that the writ filed by the petitioner raises issues which were raised in WP(C) No.776/1997.
5. The two writ petitions were disposed of vide two separate orders dated 22.9.2002.
6. WP(C) No.776/1997 was disposed of on a consent by learned counsel for the parties that the petitioners therein would be allotted alternative sites in terms of the scheme of rehabilitation set out in the further second additional affidavit filed by the DDA on 4.9.2001 and further that DDA would reconsider the rates at which the alternative sites were to be allotted.
7. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of holding that though the petitioner had not consented to the consent directions, he could not lay a claim to the site in question and thus even he would be entitled to an alternative allotment on the same terms on which alternative allotment was made by DDA to the writ petitioners of WP(C) No.776/1997.
8. The appellant challenged the order dated 22.9.2002 by and under LPA No.822/2002 which was allowed with a direction that the writ petition filed by the appellant be re-decided on merits.
9. At the remanded stage, the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed vide order dated 20.3.2003.
10. Briefly stated, claim of the appellant in the writ petition was that at the time of partition his father as also many other persons who had migrated to India settled in Kingsway Camp on Hudson Lines, Outram Lines, Reid Lines and Edward Lines. The area was developed by the Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) allotted, on tehbazari, a site measuring 10’ x 10’ between Shop No.33 and Stall No.53 in Wadhwa Market to the father of the appellant. That the father of the petitioner was asked to vacate the site and he filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The matter was litigated right up to the Supreme Court and the relief which was granted to the father of the appellant was that he would not be dispossessed without an opportunity of hearing being granted to him by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
11. That from time to time Re-development Scheme were framed for the re-development of Kingsway Camp area and under one such scheme the occupants of Wadhwa Market, Kingsway Camp were sought to be evicted and they filed a writ petition numbered as WP(C) No.776/1997 challenging their displacement.
12. We may note at this stage that in para 10 of the writ petition filed by the appellant, he averred as under:-
“10. That when number of shopkeepers adjoining the shop of the petitioner’s father was sought to be forcibly removed by the Delhi Development Authority, they filed a Civil Writ No.776 of 1997 in this Hon’ble Court challenging the action of the Delhi Development Authority. A copy of the writ petition is attached herewith and is marked Annexure-C and copies of orders are annexed herewith as Annexure-C-1 and C-2 respectively.”
13. The appellant alleged that his father died in the year 1989 and on the death of his father he paid the tehbazari to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and that he repeatedly represented to th
