Delhi High Court
Raj Rani Jhamb vs Delhi Development Authority on 12 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997IVAD(DELHI)173, 67(1997)DLT337, 1997(42)DRJ258
JUDGMENT Vijender Jain, J.
(1) This petition can be disposed of at this stage.
(2) ADMIT.
(3) PETITIONER'S husband, Mr.B K Jhamb, applied for a plot in the Rohini Mig scheme on 23.3.198depositing Rs.5,000/= with the respondent-Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA'). Petitioner's husband was a Government servant. He died on 16.5.1986. The petitioner, wife of late Mr.B K Jhamb, addressed an application dated 18.7.1986 to the Dda requesting, interÿalia, that since her husband expired, her name be substituted in his place. On 22.1.1987, respondent-DDA transferred the name of the petitioner in place of her deceased husband. The petitioner also informed the Dda vide her letter dated 25.2.1988, which is 'Annexure P-8' to the petition with the request that she has shifted her residence from Netaji Nagar, New Delhi to Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi requesting respondent to note the change of address and further correspondence may be sent at that address. In the year 1987, Dda issued a public notice on 30.11.1987 to the following effect "DELHIDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY"
ATTENTIONRETIRED/RETIRING Public Servants Registered Under Rohini Residential Scheme In Various Categories PUBLIC Servant registered under the Rohini Residential Scheme in various categories, who have already retired or are likely to retire by 31.12.88 are hereby informed that in case they wish to be considered for priority allotment, they may submit their application in the prescribed form which will be available from 1.12.1987 to 31.12.1987 at the 'Form Sale Counter' in the Central Hall of 'D' Block, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi between 10.30 A M on all working days. Applications received after 31.12.1987 will not be considered. D.D.A. has reserved 12% plots under various categories to such persons who are already registered in Rohini Residential Scheme. Allotment of plot will be made by draw of lots. All the terms and conditions of the allotment will remain same as already announced through Rohini Brochure in 1981. @SUBPARA = Note : The term 'Public Servant' means and includes employees of Central Government, Delhi Administration, Statutory Autonomous Bodies, Public Sector Undertaking, Institute of Govt. of india and Delhi Administration, Nationalised Banks, All India Services and All State employees and who are already registered under Rohini Scheme.
(KRISHANLAL) Deputy director Rohini (4) In terms of this public notice, the petitioner submitted an application in the prescribed format, which was duly received by the respondent. Thereafter a draw of lot was held for the retired persons scheme on 3.10.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that in the said draw of lot 90 Sq.mtr. plot at Rohini Extention was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know that she was allotted a plot by the Dda through a property dealer. In April'1990 he offered her a premium of Rs.50,000/= for the aforesaid plot. The allotment to petitioner is not denied by the respondent. It is strange that a property dealer came to know about the allotment and not the petitioner. The petitioner made a representation interÿalia stating that as she has been allotted plot a demand-cum-allotment letter be issued to her, on 16.4.1990 itself. Petitioner wrote to the respondent for allotment-cum-demand letter. The price of the plot at the time of draw of lot on 4.12.1989 was Rs.44,685/=. These averments are made by the petitioner in para-12 of the writ petition. The reply of the respondent to these averments makes an interesting reading |- "PARA12 is a matter of record. However, it is stated that the allotment which was made in the name of the petitioner was made by mistake in fact the case of the petitioner does not fall within the Scheme which came out in 1987 inviting applications from retired/retiring persons to make the allotment on priority basis under R.P.S. Category, whereas in the case of the petitioner the registration on the death of her husband (died on 16.5.1986) was transferred in her name vide the office letter dated 22.1.1987. ........................."
(5) The original record was directed to be produced in the Court. There is a note in the original file, which is at page-22/N, by the Joint Director (LSB) Rohini dated 15.11.1994. The said Joint Director has discussed in his note that in similar circumstances in past in the case of one Smt.Kaushal Gupta and in the case of Smt.Chander Wati Jain, respondent has taken the decision to allot the plot to the allottees by asking the allottees to make the payment upto 31.7.91 without interest as the services were not available in the Sectors in which the allotments were made and thereafter payment was to be accepted along with interest upto 31.12.1992. It was further stipulated in the aforesaid two cases that in addition to the interest, restoration charges will also be chargeable upto 31.12.1992. It was further noted in the said note in the following terms |- @SUBPARA = "...........thus, in case the Demand Letter is now issued to Smt.Raj Rani Jhamb, she is liable to pay interest with effect from 1.8.91 upto the date of issue of Demand Letter........"
(6) Curiously, nothing was done in the matter except a noting of the Vice-Chairman dated 23.1.1995, which is as follows |- @SUBPARA = "Demand letter was not issued on the basis of 1989 draw. Hence, fresh Demand Letter should be issued as per costing on the date of issue of Demand Letter - Say in January'1995."
(7) The noting on the file by the Vice-Chairman smacks of indifference and total non-application of mind and shows complete insensitivity to the problem faced by the petitioner, it further shows that note of the Joint Director of respondent citing examples where persons similarly situated were not charged the subsequent rates, was not at all addressed to by the Vice-Chairman. Nothing has been said in the said note as to why the case of the petitioner having been similar to the cases of Smt.Kaushal Gupta and Smt.Chander Wati Jain in terms of note of the Joint Director (LBS) dated 15.11.1994, could be treated in a different manner by the respondent. The action of the respondent in fixing rates from January'1995 is totally arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. As a matter of fact, it was of great concern that when petitioner was considered for allotment in 1989, specific plot allotted to petitioner why instead of petitioner, the particulars of petitioner came to knowledge of a third party, i.e.real estate broker, the note of Vice-Chairman does not deal with this aspect of the representation of the petitioner..
(8) Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that in terms of Delhi Development Authority Vs.Pushpendra Kumar Jain , no vested right is created on the basis of letter of demand. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is totally mis-conceived. Here is a case where no demand letter was issued to the petitioner in terms of draw of lot dated 3.10.1989. It is a reflection on the working of the department of respondent- authority that even when the petitioner was found eligible in the draw of lot held by the respondent on 3.10.1989 instead of notice and information thereof to be given to the petitioner, it was a broker, who deals in a property, got the information of list of allottees, allottees never got the demand-cum-allotment letter and at a later stage, in a whimsical and fanciful manner, the petitioner was directed to make the payment in the words of Vice-Chairman of the Dda - "Say at the rate of January'1995". What a callous attitude in dealing with a citizen? It is one of those cases where a citizen has to suffer not only on account of delay but for a right which she had acquired on account of treatment meted out by respondent to two other cases similar to that of petitioner for allotment of plot of land, petitioner was dealt in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. The action of the respondent is totally discriminatory and violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.
(9) I issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent to treat the case of the petitioner on the same footing with that of Smt.Kaushal Gupta and Smt.Chander Wati Jain and issue demand-cum- allotment letter within two weeks in terms of the those cases by charging interest and restoration charges upto 31.12.1992 from 1.8.1991 as per note of respondent reproduced above. Writ petition is allowed and Rule is made absolute.