Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ...

on 1 January, 1996

Delhi High Court

Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: 61 (1996) DLT 864
Author: L Prasad
Bench: R Lahoti, L Prasad
JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Prasad, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for allotment of a strip of land, measuring 100
Sq. yards adjacent to the plot of the petitioner, bearing No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi.

(2) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition, briefly stated are that plot No.
D-IV/33, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi was allotted in favour of one Shri Bhupinder Singh by the
Ministry of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India on 18th Feb., 1958. A formal lease deed in respect of the
above mentioned plot was executed in favour of said Shri Bhupinder Singh on 28th January, 1964.
Thereafter on 11th August, 1985 the petitioner purchased the above mentioned plot by means of a
registered sale deed for Rs l,35,000.00 . The Land & Development Office, Govt. of India issued
mutation letter on 15.1.1986, mutating the above mentioned property in the name of the petitioner.
The Petitioner made request vide letters Annexures 'K' & "L' to the Vice-Chairman, Delhi
Development Authority(hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA') requesting for the allotment and
possession of the strip of land adjacent to his above mentioned plot. However, the concerned
authorities of the Dda instead of allotting the additional strip of land in favour of the petitioner, on
28.5.1990 demolished the structure standing thereon without serving any notice on the petitioner.

(3) On behalf of respondent Dda, it is contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the
present petition as he has no right and/ or interest in the plot (strip of land) in question and that the
alleged strip of land alongwith other pieces of land, measuring approximately 1020 Sq. yards were
transferred to Dda subject to payment of Rs 30 crores in pursuance of a Cabinet decision by the
Ministry of Supply & Rehabilitation, Govt. of India, as conveyed vide letter dated 2.9.1982
(Annexure R-1), addressed to the Vice-Chairman, DDA. The vacant possession of all the pieces of
land, including the piece of land in dispute, was taken over by the Dda on 3.1.1984 (Annexure R-2)
and since then all the pieces of land including the one in dispute belong to DDA. The respondent
Dda in its counter has specifically denied demolition/damage to any structure on plot No. D-IV/33,
Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which belongs to the petitioner However, the Dda has
admitted that it has demolished illegal construction/structure standing on the piece of land in
question, bearing No. D-IV/33-A, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi on 28.5.1990. It is further
contended by the respondent Dda that it had demolished only the illegal construction/structure on
the encroached land existing on plot No. D-IV/33-A, Amar Colony which belongs to Dda and no loss
or damage whatsoever has been caused to the property bearing No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony
belonging to the petitioner. Thus no civil or legal right of the petitioner has been violated during the
said demolition. The charge of discrimination has also been denied and it has been stated that the
Dda never allotted to the owner of plot No. D-34 any piece of land adjacent thereto, as alleged. It is
prayed in the counter, filed on behalf of Dda, that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and that
the petition be dismissed with costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 1

 Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996

(4) The Land & Development Officer (respondent No. 2) filed a separate counter. In its counter filed
on 29.10.1991 respondent No. 2 admitted the allotment of plot No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat
Nagar in favour of said Shri Bhupinder Singh on 18.2.1958. It is also admitted that said Shri
Bhupinder Singh applied for permission to sell the above mentioned plot to the petitioner, which
was accorded to him on 26.6.85. It is also admitted that the property (plot No. D-IV/33. Amar
Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi) as a result of sale stands mutated in the name of the petitioner.

(5) In so far as the piece of land in question is concerned, it is stated that said Shri Bhupinder Singh
had applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Ministry of Rehabilitation for allotment of the
same in his favour but the Department of Rehabilitation vide letter dated 1.6.1984rejected the above
request of Shri Bhupinder Singh on the ground that the strip of land in question was a regular plot
and its control had been transferred to Dda in accordance with the policy of the Government It has
also been stated in the reply affidavit that as per the policy the piece of land cannot be treated as a
strip of land, adjacent to a plot because the same is a regular plot, capable of being used
independently.

(6) Explaining the policy of allotment of additional strips of land to the Lessees of adjacent plots it
has been stated that earlier such allotment of additional strips of land was governed by the policy of
the Govt. as laid down in letter No. 9(13)/ Csc / Survey / 63 dated 23.2.1970 and additional strips of
land to the lessees of plot Nos D-IV/34, E-IV/68, E-IV/33 and D-IV/1, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar
were allotted some time in 1970-72. Said Shri Bhupinder Singh was neither the lessee of plot No.
D-IV/33 in 1970-72 nor did he apply for allotment of additional land to the Department of
Rehabilitation during the above said period when the above said policy dated 23.2.1970 was in force.
The above policy dated 23.2.1970, which did not lay down any restrictions, was reviewed by the
Department of Rehabilitation and a revised policy was laid down vide letter No.
3(148)/Survey/CSC/72-SS-11 dated 28.1.1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Revised Policy of
1980'). In the Revised Policy of 1980 it was laid down that addl. strips of land would strictly mean
those pieces of land which cannot be used independently.

(7) It is stated in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 that request for the allotment
of this addl. piece of land was made for the first time vide letter dated 1.4.1981 which was examined
at the highest level i.e. by the then Minister for Supply & Rehabilitation and thereafter the lessee
Shri Bhupinder Singh was informed vide letter dated 4.8.1981 that the land lying adjacent to plot
No. D- Iv / 33, Amar Colony did not fall under the definition of 'addl. strip of land' and was therefore
not available for transfer. Thereafter Smt. Jagjit Kaur, Attorney of said Shri Bhupinder Singh vide
letter dated 4.5.1984 again applied for transfer of the said piece of land. The above request, made by
Shri Bhupinder Singh through his attorney, was duly examined by the Department of Rehabilitation
and said Smt. Jagjit Kaur was informed vide letter dated 1.6.1984 that the piece of land was a
regular plot and the same could not be termed as "additional strip of land" and the same had been
transferred to Dda and therefore the request could not be acceded to. Respondent No.2 too has
specifically denied the allegation of discrimination.

(8) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also carefully gone through
the documents/material available on record including the written submissions filed on behalf of the

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 2

 Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996

petitioner on 20.11.1995. Further with a view to satisfy ourselves, we called upon respondent No. 2
to produce the concerned records and the said respondent accordingly has produced the same
before us which we have also perused.

(9) The claim of the petitioner for allotment of the addl. piece of land, lying adjacent to his plot,
bearing No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar is based on the ground that as per the policy of the
respondent such strips of land should be offered to the allottees of corner plots at the prevailing
market price and there can be no exception in the case of petitioner who owns a corner plot bearing
No. D-IV/ 33 and the piece of land is lying adjacent to his above said plot. In support of his
contention he has quoted 7 instances as per details given in para 3 of the petition, where similar
strips of land adjacent to the corner plots have been allotted to the owners of the corner plots. The
learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, both oral as well as written, has
placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Cwp No. 79/1974 - Smt. Purnima Deb v. Chief
Settlement Commissioner & Ors., decided on 5.1.1989.

(10) Admittedly the plot owned by the petitioner, bearing No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi is a 'corner plot' and the place of land, measuring 100 Sq. yards (No. D-IV/33-A) is lying
adjacent to the above said plot, owned by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that respondent
No.2 in the past had allotted pieces of land which were lying adjacent to the corner plots owned by
other allottees. However the actual position has been made amply clear by respondent No.2 in the
counter affidavit filed on 29.10.91. From a perusal of the contents of the above said counter affidavit,
it is apparent that the Department of Rehabilitation, Govt. of India vide letter No.
9(13)CSC/Survey/63 dated the 23rd Feb., 1970 laid down the policy regarding allotment of addl.
strip of land and the above said instructions as contained in letter dated 23.2.1970 did not lay down
any restriction in the matter of allotment of addl. strip of land to the corner plot holders. In
pursuance of the above said guidelines additional strips of land were allotted to some of the lessees
of the corner plots some time in 1970-72. Said Shri Bhupinder Singh did not make any application
for the allotment of addl. piece of land at that time. However, the above said instructions of
23.2.1970 were reviewed by the Department of Rehabilitation and the Govt. of India, Ministry of
Supply & Rehabilitation vide letter dated 28.1.1980 issued revised instructions in supersession of
earlier instructions, governing the disposal of additional strips of Lands in the rehabilitation
colonies in Delhi/New Delhi. Though the earlier instructions dated the 23.2.1970 did not lay down
any restrictions but the fact remains that the subsequent instructions dated 28.1.1980 specifically
laid down the following terms & conditions for the disposal of such lands :- "(I)Strips of land shall
be defined as self-contained pieces of land not exceeding 125 sq. yds and not forming part of larger
areas of adjoining plots that have been disposed of under the Displaced Persons (Compensation &
Rehabilitation) Act, 1954. (ii) These strips will mean strictly those pieces of land which cannot be
used independently. (iii) It is to be ensured first that these strips of land are not required by the
Government in public interest. (iv) For the strips of land lying vacant, the price to be charged would
be 50% over and above the current Schedule of Rates prescribed by the Ministry of Works &
Housing to be increased by 10% for every year subsequent to the year to which the Works & Housing
Schedule of Rates pertains. (v) In cases where the strips of land are found to be under unauthorised
occupation of prospective buyers and the occupation is unobjectionable price to be charged for the
land would be 25% over and above the price mentioned at (iv) above. (vi) Leases in respect of these

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 3

 Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996

strips of land would be issued in Appendix Xi and the ground rent would be payable at the rate of
Re. 1.00 per 100 sq. yds per annum. (vii) Payment shall be made/accepted within six weeks of the
issue of the offer. (viii) All these Cases will be decided by the Deputy Chief Settlement Commissioner
(G). Before offers are issued, the land use of each strip is to be checked with reference to the
approved Master Plan and the prospective transferee will be required to file an affidavit that with
the transfer of the additional strip of land, his land holding will not exceed the prescribed urban
ceiling in Delhi. The terms and conditions contained herein are final and no correspondence/
objections etc. shall be entertained. Offer/agreement to sell made by the Deputy Chief Settlement
Commissioner (G) shall clearly state this position. If the offer is not accepted or lapses, the
concerned strip shall forthwith be handed over to the DDA."

(11) Though said Shri Bhupinder Singh, as per the averments made by the petitioner, applied in the
year 1974 and thereafter on 8.7.1981 enclosing cheque for Rs 15.000.00 (alongwith letter dated
20.5.74) & for Rs 40,000.00 (alongwith letter dated 8.7.1981) but the fact remains that as per
petitioners own averments none of the above mentioned two cheques were encashed. The receipt of
communication of the year 1974 purported to have been sent by Shri Bhupinder Singh has not been
admitted by respondent No.2 due to the non-availability of records. However as regards letter dated
8.7.81 it is stated by respondent No.2 in its counter that as no offer of addl. strip of land was made to
Shri Bhupinder Singh nor any demand for money was sent to him and therefore the cheque
naturally was not encashed. In the presence of the above facts, more particularly the
non-encashment of the cheques by the respondents, the communications dated 20.5.74 and dated
8.7.81 do not have much bearing in so far as the claim of the petitioner is concerned.

(12) As per the contention of respondent No. 2 request for allotment of addl. land was received for
the first time vide letter dated 1.4.1981 and the same was examined at the highest level i.e. by the
then Minister for Supply & Rehabilitation and said Shri Bhupinder Singh, the lessee, was informed
vide letter dated 4.8.1981 that the "land lying adjacent to plot No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony does not
come under the definition of addl. strip of land and was, therefore, not available for transfer". Smt.
Jagjit Kaur, the attorney of said Shri Bhupinder Singh again applied for the transfer of the above
said piece of land vide letter dated 4.5.1984. This request too was examined and said Smt. Jagjit
Kaur was also informed vide letter dated 1.6.1984 that the piece of land in question was a 'regular
plot' and the same could not be termed as addl. strip of land. It was also informed that the said piece
of land / plot had been transferred to DDA.

(13) From the narration of the above facts it is apparent that the earlier allotments of the addl.
pieces of land to the lessees of adjacent corner plots were made by respondent No. 2 in terms of the
instructions as contained in letter dated 23.2.70 which did not lay down any restrictions in respect
of the allotment of addl. strip of land to the corner plot holders whereas the request of said Shri
Bhupinder Singh the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was made when the above said
instructions issued in 1970 ceased to exist and the same were replaced/superseded by the
instructions issued in Jan, 1980 which provided for certain restrictions/ conditions under which the
claim of said Shri Bhupinder Singh was not tenable. In the presence of the above facts it cannot be
stated that the petitioner has been subjected to any hostile discrimination, because at a given time
similarly situated persons have been treated similarly as per the policy of respondents. The

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 4

 Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996

respondents, though 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, have every right to
formulate, to alter or to vary their policy in such like matters from time to time keeping in view the
various factors. The only obligation on their part is that persons situated similarly are treated in the
same way without any discrimination.

(14) The learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, laid a lot of emphasis
on letter dated 5.3.84 (Annexure G to the petition), more particularly the contents of penultimate
paragraph of the above said letter. In our opinion the same in no way helps the case of the
petitioner. The contents of the above communication, if read as a whole, clearly indicate that the
Deputy Land & Development Officer vide above communication demanded the sum of Rs. 2,614.30
towards penalty for keeping the plot unbuilt for a period longer than allowed in terms of the lease
deed and also towards damage charges. The same, by no stretch of imagination, be treated or
termed as a demand or a demand connected with the transfer/ allotment of addl. strip of land
adjacent to the plot of the petitioner.

(15) While referring to the policy, formulated by respondent No.2 in 1980, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner submitted that even under the above policy the respondent has defined self-contained
pieces of land not exceeding 125 Sq. yards as 'strips of land' and this piece of land in question,
measuring only 100 Sq. yards is a strip of land which can be allotted to the petitioner even under the
revised policy formulated in 1980. In support of his above contention the learned Counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the respondents have allotted a strip of land, measuring 117 Sq.
yards to the owner of the comer plot, bearing No. D-IV/74 on 20.5.81 under the revised policy of
1980.

(16) In our opinion the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is also devoid of
substance because the policy formulated by the respondents in 1980 lays down a number of
conditions. In addition to condition No. (i) which deals with the size of the piece of land, condition
No. (ii) of the above said policy also provides that the strip "will mean strictly those pieces of land
which cannot be used independently". Thus a piece of land, under the policy of 1980, for being
treated as a strip of land for disposal has to satisfy all the requirements as laid down in the above
mentioned letter dated 28.1.1980 besides the condition with regard to the size of the piece of land.
In the instant case the stand of respondent No. 2 all through has been that the piece of land in
question is a 'regular plot' and the same cannot be termed as additional strip of land. This fact has
been mentioned clearly in letter dated 1.6.84 (Annexure - J) written by Shri T.S. Chawla, the then
Managing Officer (GBP), Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour & Rehabilitation (S.W), addressed to
Smt. Jagjit Kaur, attorney of said Shri Bhupinder Singh with reference to her letter dated 4.5.1984
requesting for allotment of the place of land in question.

(17) Moreover, in the facts & circumstances of the present case it cannot be conclusively stated that
every piece of land not exceeding 125 Sq. yards will not be a 'regular plot' and will be an 'additional
strip of land'. If the above reasoning is allowed to prevail and is accepted then the plot of land
allotted to said Shri Bhupinder Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, would not have
been allotted 'the plot in question, as a regular plot' as the same measures only 100 Sq. yards. Above
all whether a piece of land is a 'regular plot' or is an 'additional strip of land' is a question to be

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 5

 Amrik Singh vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 1 January, 1996

decided by the concerned Competent Authority, who has to take the decision in this behalf keeping
in view its policy and other relevant factors. This Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit
over the decision of the concerned administrative authority unless it is shown to the satisfaction of
the Court that the said authority while taking such a decision has acted malafidely or in a biased
manner which is not the case of the petitioner in the present case.

(18) As regards the decision of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 79/1974, relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner, the position is that the same also in no way helps the cause of the
petitioner as the same relates to a case governed by the policy formulated by respondent No. 2 in
1970, which fact is evident from the following observations of S.B. Wad, J. in that case - "When the
said letter was issued by the Department the instructions regarding allotment of strips of land to
adjoining owners dated 23.2.1970 were already in force and the petitioner was entitled to be
considered for allotment on the basis of the said instructions. That the said strip happens to form a
part of the present plot J-17 which was carved out at a date later than the date of the said
instructions cannot be held against the petitioner. The petitioner is thus entitled under the said
instructions on 23.2.1970 followed by the instructions of 73 for the allotment of the said strip of land
measuring 16'xl4' immediately adjoining quarter number 72 on eastern side."

(19) Lastly it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the officers of respondent
No. 1 (DDA) without any previous notice, unauthorisedly & illegally demolished the petitioners
construction/ structure standing on plot No. D- IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. As
regards the above aspect the Dda (respondent No.1) has filed an affidavit of Shri U.S. Jolly, Director
(L.M.) who has stated on oath categorically denying any demolition of any structure/ construction
standing on plot No. D-IV/33, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. It is stated in the above said
affidavit that the respondent Dda on 28.5.90 had only demolished the illegal construction/structure
on the piece of land, namely, D-IV/ 33-A which was encroached upon illegally and unauthorisedly
by the petitioner and which piece of land vested in Dda as a result of the transfer of the same to Dda
alongwith other lands by the Govt. of India under a package deal for which the Dda was to pay Rs 30
crores to the Govt. of India. It has also been stated by the Dda in the counter that the petitioner had
full knowledge and notice of the demolition programme carried out by Dda on 28.5.90. In the
presence of the above facts, as stated in the counter affidavit of Dda and the fact that the petitioner,
as per his own case, has no right and/or interest in the piece of land (D-IV/33-A) there appears to be
hardly any substance in the above submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(20) In view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the present writ petition is devoid of substance.
The same merits dismissal. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/600271/ 6