Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar Bhasker vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 8 December, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 08.12.2011
+ W.P.(C) No.10917/2004
IN THE MATTER OF
ASHWANI KUMAR BHASKER ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Akhilesh K. Jha, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. V.K. Tandon, Adv. for R-1 & 2/
Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for R-3/DDA.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to respondent No.2/SDM, Punjabi Bagh, Government of NCT of Delhi, to certify that the petitioner is one of the Punjab Migrants residing at the Peera Garhi Relief Camp. The second relief sought by the petitioner is for directions to respondent No.3/DDA to allot a flat to him under the Housing Scheme for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants (in short 'the Scheme'). Thirdly, it is prayed that till the petitioner is allotted a flat under the said Scheme, status quo of the refugee camp be maintained by the respondents. Lastly, the petitioner has sought investigation into the illegal and irregular allotment of flats under the aforesaid Scheme.
W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 1 of 7
2. Counsels for the respondents state that all the reliefs, as sought by the petitioner in the present petition, have already been granted to him inasmuch as he has been issued a certificate to the effect that he is a Punjab Migrant residing at Peera Garhi Relief Camp and a flat has been allotted to him at Bindapur, Delhi under the Scheme, whereafter he has shifted to the said flat and lastly, the issue of investigation into the allotment of flats under the Scheme has been considered extensively by a Coordinate Bench in WP(C)No.13741/2004 entitled "Punjab Migrants Welfare Association vs. Delhi State Govt. of NCT of Delhi", which was finally decided on 10.5.2007.
3. While conceding the fact that the petitioner has been issued a certificate stating that he is a Punjab Migrant and he has been rehabilitated upon respondent No.3/DDA allotting him a flat at Bindapur, counsel for the petitioner states that the remaining issue for consideration in the present petition is that the petitioner has been wrongly allotted a flat at Bindapur under the Housing Scheme floated by respondent No.3/DDA for Rehabilitation of Punjab Migrants, whereas he ought to have been considered for allotment of a flat only at Dwarka, Narela or Rohini, for the reason that he had applied under the Scheme only for the aforesaid three areas. He further states that allotments at Dwarka, Narela and Rohini were fraudulently made to persons, who were not even Punjab Migrants and thus, the petitioner had been deprived of his right of W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 2 of 7 allotment of a flat in the aforesaid areas, even though he was entitled for the same having satisfied both the conditions of eligibility of being a Punjab migrant and of living in a designated refugee camp.
4. The attention of this Court is drawn to the orders passed in the present proceedings from time to time directing respondent No.3/DDA as also respondents No.1 & 2/Government of NCT of Delhi to file appropriate affidavits stating inter alia the action taken by them with regard to the persons who have been pointed out as having been included fraudulently in the list of allotment of flats to Punjab Migrants.
5. Counsel for the respondents state that such affidavits have been filed by them from time to time during the pendency of these proceedings. It is submitted by the counsel for respondent No.3/DDA that an affidavit was filed by DDA on 19.4.2008, wherein it was stated that changes in allotment from Narela to other localities like Dwarka and Rohini, had been allowed by the DDA for the reason that at the relevant time, sufficient flats had been available at the said localities to effect such changes. However, such changes to Rohini and Dwarka were allowed only till June, 2003. Subsequently, since sufficient flats were not available in Dwarka and Rohini, the area of Bindapur was included in the draw of lots, held from June, 2003 onwards to adjust the other Punjab Migrants. It is further stated that the petitioner's case was verified on 2.8.2004 and on the said date, Bindapur had already been included as W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 3 of 7 one of the areas where allotment was to be made to Punjab Migrants, hence his case was recommended for allotment in the Bindapur area. She further relies on the Scheme to state that subsequently, a fresh brochure was printed by the DDA, wherein it was mentioned that 3,276 built-up flats were being offered for allotment in Bindapur and Narela. In such circumstances, the petitioner having been allotted a flat at Bindapur of which he has taken possession, he cannot now insist for allotment of flat in Dwarka or Rohini.
6. It is pertinent to note that even as per Clause 16(ii) of the brochure issued by the respondent/DDA, it reserves the right to increase or decrease the number of flats on offer in the scheme. At the same time, DDA also reserves the right to withdraw some/all flats depending on the circumstances. Furthermore, merely because the petitioner gave his choices for allotment of a flat at Dwarka, Rohini and Narela, does not mean that he had acquired any vested right to seek allotment in the said areas alone, allotment being dependent on the availability of flats in the area in question. The explanation offered by respondent No.3/DDA in its affidavit that the petitioner had become eligible for a flat only on 02.08.2004, on which date flats in Rohini and Dwarka had already been exhausted, and by then the area of Bindapur had been included for the purposes of allotment is found to be plausible and reasonable. Hence it cannot be urged that the petitioner was discriminated against by the W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 4 of 7 respondent/DDA by offering him a flat at Bindapur. Having found the explanation offered by the respondent/DDA for allotting the petitioner a flat at Bindapur as tenable and justified, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent/DDA has not committed any illegality, arbitrariness or irrationality in making such an allotment to the petitioner.
7. Furthermore, as noted above, the entire issue with regard to rehabilitation of the Punjab Migrants under the Scheme floated by the DDA, was subject matter of consideration before a Coordinate Bench in WP(C)No.13741/2004, wherein orders passed by the Supreme Court and the NHRC were also taken into consideration and all aspects of the matter were considered minutely, whereafter a detailed judgment was passed holding inter alia that the exercise undertaken by the SDM to verify the claims of the residents of the Peera Garhi Camp could not be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. Pertinently, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court had relied upon an interim order dated 27.7.2006, wherein it was recorded that the SDM would commence his sitting for the purpose of verification of allotment of flats from 21.8.2006 till 5.9.2006, so as to facilitate the parties to participate in the verification. It was only after the learned Single Judge had examined the report submitted by the SDM in the inquiry and was satisfied that the SDM had exercised due diligence in identifying such of the parties who had provided adequate documents in support of their claim of being eligible for being recommended for W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 5 of 7 reallocation under the Scheme, was the matter disposed of by holding that the verification exercise undertaken by the SDM was neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable.
8. In view of the aforesaid detailed judgment, this Court does not propose to undertake yet another exercise in the context of prayer (4) made by the petitioner in the present petition seeking investigation into the alleged illegal and irregular allotment of flats under the Scheme. The prayers in the writ petition have been satisfied and the petition is accordingly disposed of. However, taking into consideration the order dated 6.8.2008, whereunder it was noted that as per the petitioner, he could have been allotted a flat under the Scheme at Dwarka, Narela or Rohini, if fraudulent allotment had not been made to persons ineligible under the Scheme, because of which an interim measure, it was directed that the petitioner would shift to the flat allotted to him at Bindapur, while leaving the option open that if the petitioner was found entitled to any other flat at Dwarka, Narela or Rohini, he could seek possession of the same after surrendering possession of the flat at Bindapur, this Court deems it appropriate to grant leave to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings if so advised, wherein he would be at liberty to point out specific instances of any such discrimination by respondent No.3/DDA after 2.8.2004, the date on which he was found eligible for being allotted a flat under the Scheme. In such an eventuality, the W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 6 of 7 petitioner shall not encumber or alienate the flat allotted to him at Bindapur which is presently in his possession, as ordered on 6.8.2008, till the conclusion of such proceedings. However, if the petitioner does not propose to initiate any such proceedings, he shall indicate the same to respondent No.3/DDA by sending a written communication to it within two weeks, so that he is released from the restriction imposed on him to not encumber or alienate the flat in question.
The petition is disposed of.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 08, 2011 JUDGE
sk
W.P.(C) No.10917/2004 Page 7 of 7