Delhi Development Authority vs R.N. Chopra

Sanjiv Khanna, J.—Delhi Development Authority has filed the present writ petition to challenge the order dated 6th January, 2011 allowing O.A. No. 2649/2010 filed by R.N. Chopra, the Respondent herein.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the tribunal has erred in allowing the O.A. as there was sufficient material to show that the Respondent, who was working as UDC, had failed to bring out on record that unearned increase was to be charged when case was put up for mutation of plot No. 672, Dr. Mukerjee Nagar, Delhi.

The said mutation was undertaken and processed in 1996 and the disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2008, after a gap of twelve years. However, the tribunal did not set aside the punishment/penalty, of reduction of one stage in the time scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 15th April, 2010 and upheld by the appellate authority vide order dated 3rd August, 2010, for this reason alone.

The aforesaid plot and quarter No. E-7/27, Hudson Line, Delhi was originally allotted to one Siri Chand @ Siri kishan Lal. The allotment was made by MCD/L & DO. There was no stipulation of payment of unearned increase in the case of the quarter and in fact the said quarter had to be surrendered on allotment of the plot. It appears that the allotment of quarter was not surrendered despite of allotment of plot and no further action was taken.

It has also come on record and accepted in the enquiry report that the plot was mutated in favour of one Rawail Singh and the L & DO permitted the transfer without charging 50% unearned increase vide letter dated 5th January, 1981. At that time, the plot was not under the administrative control of the Petitioner authority and the Respondent was not responsible for accepting the said transfer and not charging unearned increase. Subsequently, when the files were transferred to the Petitioner authority, the plot was already recorded and mutated in the name of Rawail Singh. The said permission had already been granted by the L & DO.

In 1996, Mohinder Singh son of Rawail Singh made an application for mutation of the plot in his favour as Rawail Singh had expired. The Respondent had processed the file for transfer of mutation in favour of Mohinder Singh. Mohinder Singh being son of late Rawail Singh, 50% unearned increase was not payable as mutation was in favour of a legal heir, who was a blood relation. We do not understand on what score and account the Respondent can be blamed for carrying out the said mutation. At that stage in 1996, the Respondent was not concerned whether or not the earlier mutation in favour of Rawail Singh was correct or incorrect and whether L & DO while carrying out the said mutation in 1979/1981 should have claimed and demanded unearned increase. It is further noticed that the plot was subsequently converted from leasehold into freehold and the allottee paid 33% additional conversion charges, which are payable when the intending owner is not the recorded allottee. Thus, no loss was also caused to the Petitioner.

In view of the above, we concur with the findings recorded by the tribunal. The tribunal has noticed mutual contradictions in the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority. On one hand, it is admitted that the transfer/mutation in favour of the Rawail Singh was made by L & DO and at the same time, responsibility was fastened and the Respondent was made liable. The authorities did not deal with and examine the contentions and submissions of the Respondent. Thus, the decision making process got vitiated.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.