Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh vs Delhi Development Authorities on 3 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988DELHI76, 31(1987)DLT402, 1987(12)DRJ318, 1987RLR308, AIR 1988 DELHI 76, (1987) 12 DRJ 318, (1987) 31 DLT 402, 1987 RAJLR 308
Author: B.N. Kirpal
Bench: B.N. Kirpal
JUDGMENT B.N. Kirpal, J.
(1) The Delhi Development Authority was set-up for providing for development of Delhi. Whether this object has been achieved or not is debatable but the facts disclosed by this case do show the development of chaos inefficiency and bureaucratic delays in the said Authority. Of course, the charges which are levelled against the officers of this Authority are much more serious but I need not make any comment on the same. The facts of this case will disclose the inefficient and callous attitude of the officers of the Authority with no regard either for the welfare of the citizens or for the interest of the Authority itself.
(2) The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner had migrated to Delhi 1947 as a refugee. He started his leyelihood. Like a number of other fefugees, by building a shop No. 91 at Naya 3azar, Delhi. He paid rent to Dbifai in Municipal Corporation regularly from 1948 till 1967.
(3) With a view to re-settle the refugees dwelling on footpaths and "pavements, the Government of India appointed a commission known as Gadgil Commission. It, inter alia, gave its recommendations to the effect that refugees like the petitioner who had been carrying on their professions on the pavements and footpaths before 15/8/1950 should be removed only when they are allotted permanent places to carry on their profession.
(4) The benefit of the aforesaid recommendations of the Gadgil Commission was obtained by a number of refugees. The petitioner, however, obtained no such benefit but on the contrary, on 24/9/1967, he was evicted from his shop at Naya Bazar, Delhi. In lieu thereof he was, however, allotted, on temporary basis, plot No. C-12 at Rohtak Road Truck Parking measuring 20 ft. x 10 ft. Before the petitioner could establish his business there, he was given a notice to vacate the said plot and possession thereof was forcibly taken by the Delhi Administration. Ultimately, by letter dated 29/7/1965 the petitioner was informed that his claim under the Gadgil Commission assurance had been established and he was covered by the scheme of re-settlement.
(5) On the receipt of the aforesaid communication, the petitioner visited the D.D.A regularly but with no success. It is averred by the petitioner that he wag orally assured that another commercial site would be allotted to him but no concrete action was overtaken. Ultimately in september 1972 a decision was taken to allot to the petitioner a stall at Rohtak Road Truck Terminal. The receipt of this Letter must have raised the hopes of the petitioner that he would get possession of an alternative site but he apparently did not know about the way or working of the D.D.A. As is normal, no concrete benefit was received by the petitioner till he got a fetter dated 8/2/1977, informing him that it would take at least six months to construct the stalls. The petitioner again after six months, visited the office of the D.D.A. and requested that the promised stall should be given to him. All that he got this time was a letter in writing dated 16/4/1980 informing him that it had been ordered by the Lt. Governor to allot a shop to him. at Rohtak Road Truck Parking. There were 17 shops at the site out of which 16 had already been sold by the D.D.A. Only one shop was left and that was shop No. Ii but this was also proposed to be sold by the D.D.A. because it had advertised in the newspapers on 17/3/1981 that the said shop will be sold by tenders on 31/3/1981. The petitioner requested that the said shop should be allotted to him but to no avail.
(6) The petitioner then fi a writ petition in this Court being Civil Writ Petition No. 638' of 1981 in which it was, inter alia, prayed that he should be allotted the said shop at Rohtak Road Truck Parking area as had been ordered by the Lt. Governor, which order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dt. 16/4/1980 of the D.D.A. (7) Notice was issued to the respondents and on 22/5/1981 a site plan was filed in Court by the counsel for the D.D.A. The Court was informed that 24 stalls were ear-marked for construction at Rohtak Road Transport Centre and out of them one would definitely be allotted to the petitioner when it was ready. Shop No. I I being one of the 17 shops which had been constructed and was ready at Rohtak Road Truck Parking, was not given to the petitioner as the counsel for the respondent informed the Court inC.W.638ofl981 that the said shops was of a large size and was not the type of construction that had been promised to the petitioner. The Court, however, by its order dt. 22/5/1981 made note of the fact that one stall would be allotted to the petitioner out of the 24 stalls which were to be constructed at Rohtak Road Transport Centre.
(8) According to the petitioner, the stalls at Rohtak Road Transport Terminal had been constructed. Counsel for the respondent states that construction commenced in 1981 and according to the petitioner it was completed in the year 1983. Till today not a single stall has been allotted to any person. The petitioner also sails in the same boat and has not got possession of any of the said stalls. In the present writ petition the prayers of the petitioner is that he should be handed over possession of a stall after allotment is made to him.
(9) In the reply affidavit, the facts stated by the petitioner are not disputed. All that is stated is that the possession of the stall cannot be handed over as the cost of the stalls at Rohtak Road has not yet been finalised. This counter-affidavit is dated 24/9/1986 and it was stated therein that the answering respondents has all the intentions of handling over possession of the stall to the petitioner and other persons who are similarly placed within three months.
(10) The facts stated hereinabove reveal that the respondent, and by this it obviously implies the officials and employees of the respondent-Authority, has no regard whatsoever for the various promises which it has held out not only to the petitioner but also to the Court. It has no regard for the statements which it makes in the affidavits or the statements which it made in Court during the hearing of C.W. No. 638/81.
(11) The right of the petitioner to get allotment of a stall is not in dispute. The petitioner was entitled to get the stall under the Gadgil Commission's assurance which had been set-up by the Government of India to rehabilitate the refugees. Since the petitioner's eviction in 1967, two decades have elapsed and the petitioner has been denied his right due to the attitude of the respondent which is wholly unwarranted and unbecoming of an Authority, which is meant to look after not only the development but also the interest of the citizens of the city. Not only have the other refugees who were entitled to stalls been denied the possession thereof but the D.D.A. have also suffered in the bargain. The stalls in question were constructed and were ready in 1983. Four years have elapsed but they have not been allotted. The reason given is that the respondent has not been able to determine the cost of" the stalls. The excuse for this is that the Engineering Department has not passed on the relevant information. Had the stalls been allotted, the D.D.A. would have recovered the price thereof in 1983.
(12) As of today the stalls have been constructed, The cost of construction has not yet been realised by the D.D.A. because it has not determined as to what is the cost the stalls have been allotted and nobody is in legal occupation thereof. I would not be surprised, considering the state of affairs in this city and the in action and connivance of some of the officials of the D.D.A. if those stalls are infact in actual physical possession of some unauthorised persons. Ms. Gosain,of course, says that stalls are still lying; vacant. What is their state of repair, one can only guess. The respondent. is not even embarrassed in informing the Court that for a period of four years they have not been able to work out the cost of the construction. One really begins to wonder if the allotment is not being made because the cost of the stalls has not yet been finalised or whether, as submitted by the petitioner, the cost to be paid to the officials has not been finalised. There is no justifiable reason as to why the stalls have not yet been allotted and possession handed-over.
(13) It is high time that in such departments like the D.D.A. there- should be an accountability of the officers to the public. The inaction of the officials of the D.D.A. has resulted in agony, misery and loss to the petitioner and also financial loss to the Authority who has not yet been able to recover the cost of the stalls constructed, because the same has not yet been finalised.
(14) I would, therefore, direct the Vice Chairman of the Authority to investigate and hold persons responsible for dereliction of duty in not determining the cost and allotting the stalls in question. The Vice Chairman would be failing in his duty if no action is taken for the callous and negligent manner in which the employees of D.D.A. have acted, or rather refrained from. acting.
(15) In view of the fact that the stalls are ready and the petitioner is admittedly entitled to the allotment of one of the same, I issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to hand over vacant possession of one of the aforesaid stalls constructed at Rohtak Road Transport Centre to the petitioner within 15 days of the receipt of this judgment even if the cost of the stalls has not been determined till that date. The petitioner shall, however, be liable to pay the cost as and when determined. The cost will have to be determined in accordance with the terms of the Gadgil Commission assurance,. namely, on no profit no loss basis.
(16) The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive costs of this petition which are computed at Rs. 5,000.00.