Delhi High Court
Davinder Pal Singh vs Dda on 17 May, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
Bench: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1681/2010
Decided on: 17.05.2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
DAVINDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Jai Bansal, Adv. along with
petitioner in person.
versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv. with
Mr.Amit Mehra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of the letter dated 30.09.1987 issued by the respondent/DDA rejecting his request for allotment of an alternative plot in lieu of his shop being Shop No.T-721, Zakhira Chowk situated at the Zakhira Flyover area. The petitioner also seeks directions to the respondent/DDA to rehabilitate him in lieu of his shop that was demolished by the respondent, from where the petitioner claims that he was running an automotive repair shop in the name of M/s Pal Auto Electric Works in the year 1984.
2. It is averred in the writ petition that on 15.11.1984, the petitioner's shop was burnt down during the riots that took place in the area after the assassination of Late Smt. Indira Gandhi, the W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 1 of 9 then Prime Minister of India. The petitioner claims to have filed a complaint dated 15.11.1984 with the local SHO with regard to the arson and the loss of goods suffered by him, which was duly received at P.S. Inderlok. It is thus submitted that the petitioner is also entitled to an alternate shop in lieu of his shop that came to be demolished by the respondent/DDA for building the Zakhira Flyover in the area, in terms of the scheme of relocation that had been implemented by DDA.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA on 06.08.2010, DDA has averred that three months prior to the aforesaid riots, i.e., in August 1984, as the MCD had required the land at Zakhira for undertaking the work of construction of a flyover, initially the civic authority had carried out a survey of the area wherein 300 persons were identified, who were likely to be affected by the construction of the flyover. However, on receipt of a representation from a number of associations in the area that the survey conducted by the MCD did not cover all the affected units, a fresh survey was conducted by DDA. It is averred that in the course of the said survey, DDA had identified 639 traders who were likely to be affected by the construction of the flyover and were found eligible for allotment of alternative plots in Mangolpuri Industrial Area. Another survey was conducted by DDA subsequently wherein instead of the 639 traders who were W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 2 of 9 identified earlier, only 579 traders were found to be eligible. It is the stand of the DDA that in view of the variations in the survey list prepared by the DDA, it was decided that such of the units, which were found to be common in both the lists/surveys ought to be shifted from Zakhira and the affected persons would be considered for allotment of industrial plots in the Mangolpuri Industrial Area.
4. It is further stated by the respondent/DDA in its counter affidavit that the name of the petitioner did not figure either in the survey list that was prepared before the demolition was carried out or in the list of 639 persons who were identified in the survey conducted prior to the construction of the Zakhira flyover. Nor did the name of the petitioner find mention in the list of 579 persons who were identified in the second survey conducted by DDA. Thus, his case for alternate allotment was rejected on the ground that his name did not figure in any of the survey lists.
5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that at the time when the survey had been carried out, the shop of the petitioner was closed on account of the fact that he was suffering from a prolonged illness and could not attend to his work as he had been advised bed rest. As a result, the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 04.08.1984 to the Director (City Planning), DDA explaining that his shop existed in the area at the time when the survey was conducted and requesting that his name W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 3 of 9 be included in the survey list by carrying out an onsite inspection. She states that thereafter in November, 1984, the petitioner's shop got burnt down in the riots mentioned hereinabove. The petitioner had then applied to the Relief Commissioner, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, seeking financial assistance. It is submitted that the documents in support of the same have been placed on record and the originals thereof are in possession of the petitioner.
6. Apart from the above documents, the petitioner relies on some other documents executed by third parties like the bank from where he states he had taken a loan and the order passed by the learned MM, Patiala House Court in support of his claim that his shop had existed in Zakhira prior to the demolition action that was undertaken by the DDA. The petitioner also relies on a demolition list prepared by the respondent/DDA after the demolition action was carried out at Zakhira on 15.04.1985 in the course of which survey, the premises of such of the traders at Zakhira who had reoccupied the site, were demolished. In the said list annexed as Annexure P-6 of the writ petition, the name of the petitioner's firm, M/s Pal Auto Electrics Works features at serial No.21 and the address mentioned against the same is T-721, Zakhira.
7. It is submitted that from the year 1985 onwards, the petitioner had been making representations and complaints to different authorities seeking alternative allotment of a plot but to no W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 4 of 9 avail. Finally, he received a letter dated 22.11.1993 from the Commissioner (Land), DDA calling upon him to visit his office but nothing materialized even thereafter. The petitioner states that he was made to run from pillar to post in this entire period but no action was taken by the respondent/DDA in the matter of allotment of an alternative plot to him. Finally, the petitioner lodged a complaint dated 06.04.2000 with the D.C. West for the allotment of an alternative plot which was in turn forwarded to the respondent/DDA for appropriate action. The petitioner also filed a complaint dated 06.10.2000 with the Human Rights Commission that had in turn forwarded his complaint to the Vice Chairman, DDA.
8. On 27.09.2001, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the Dy. Director L.S.B. (Industries), DDA for allotment of an alternative plot and in the same month, he filed a complaint before the Lok Adalat, DDA. After considering the case of the petitioner, Justice J.D. Jain (Retd.), who was acting as the Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat, DDA recommended that the case of the petitioner be considered by the Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Yet again, nothing resulted from the said recommendation. Finally, the petitioner approached an advocate so as to file a writ petition in this Court for alternate allotment of a plot and he handed over his file and power of attorney etc. to the said advocate for drafting and W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 5 of 9 filing his case.
9. It is submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under the bonafide impression that the advocate who was engaged by him had filed a writ petition in this Court and was pursuing his case. But later on, it transpired that the advocate had not filed any writ petition on behalf of the petitioner and falsely kept informing him that some dates were given by the Court in the matter and assured him that the case was pending. After waiting for almost six years, in the end of November, 2009, when the advocate did not furnish him a copy of the writ petition that he claimed he had filed in Court, the petitioner got suspicious and on making enquiries, realized that he had been taken for a ride. As a result, he lodged a complaint against the advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi and the Bar Council of India. It is submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner before the Bar Council of Delhi is still pending consideration before its Disciplinary Committee. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee, to seek legal aid. The Committee then engaged the present counsel on his behalf, who has filed this petition. The delay in approaching the Court by filing the present petition is sought to be explained by the petitioner in the aforesaid manner.
10. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 6 of 9 also relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in a batch of matters pertaining to the allotment of alternative sites by the DDA to shop/factory/workshop owners who were displaced on account of the construction of the Zakhira Flyover including W.P.(C)2153/1994 entitled 'Surjeet Kaur Vs. DDA' and the proceedings in W.P.(C) No.2946/1991 entitled 'Jaspal Kaur Vs. DDA & Anr.' She submits that the case of the petitioner herein also relates to the same area and he is ready and willing to appear before the respondent/DDA for verification of the documents in his possession for the Department to satisfy itself with regard to their genuineness. It is urged that the petitioner ought to be extended similar treatment as extended to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions for the allotment of alternate plots, subject to verification of documents.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent/DDA states that as the name of the petitioner does not feature in any of the survey lists, he cannot claim parity with the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions, by directing DDA to verify his documents so belatedly.
12. The aforesaid submission is however refuted by learned counsel for the petitioner, who asserts that the case of the petitioner herein is similar to the case of Jaspal Kaur (Supra) for the reason that even in the aforesaid case, the name of the petitioner therein did not feature in the survey list that was prepared by the W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 7 of 9 DDA and despite the same, directions were issued by the Court to the Director (Land), DDA to investigate her case by giving her an opportunity to produce the documents in support of her claim whereafter, a report was directed to be submitted in Court. Ms. Luthra, Senior Advocate states that the petitioner asks for no more relief than the above and thereafter it shall be for the petitioner to produce all the documents in his possession for DDA to satisfy itself and verify his claim for an alternative allotment.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to satisfactorily explain the delay in approaching the Court for the relief sought herein and he ought to be afforded an opportunity to produce all the documents that are in his power and possession in support of his claim to an alternative allotment under the Scheme of relocation by appearing before the Director (Land), DDA, who shall then examine the said documents and after verifying the same, take an appropriate decision thereon, in terms of the policy applicable to his case. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to file a detailed representation giving all the relevant facts along with the supporting documents within four weeks from today. The said representation shall be considered by Director (Land), DDA and after verification of documents, a decision be taken thereon within a period of three months thereafter under written intimation to the petitioner. W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 8 of 9
14. While disposing of the present petition, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner and that DDA shall be at liberty to verify the documents submitted by him alongwith his representation and then take a judicious decision in accordance with law and in line with its policy for grant of alternative plot as allotted to other dislocated persons on account of construction of the Zakira Flyover. If the respondent/DDA is satisfied with the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner, an alternative plot shall be allotted to him within six weeks from the date of completion of requisite formalities by him.
15. The petition is disposed of while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
(HIMA KOHLI) Judge MAY 17, 2012 'anb'/rkb W.P.(C) No.1681/2010 Page 9 of 9