AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Record has been produced.
It has been perused.
Grievance of the petitioner is to the order dated 23.7.2004 which reads as under:
To,
The Gen. Secretary,
Manglam Educational Society,
MIG Flat i/A, Pocket-A
Phase-III, Ashok Vihar
Delhi-110052
Sub: Allotment of land for C/o Nursery School
Sir,
Kindly refer to your application No. 5738 dtd. 8.5.2002, on the subject cited above. In this connection I am directed to inform you that your case has been examined by this office but the same has been rejected by the Competent Authority.
According to the petitioner, it fails to understand as to how it suffered a rejection for the reason, on 3.3.2003 only information sought by DDA was latest bank balance certificate showing that that the society was solvent and had money to finance for the plot, it DDA allotted one. Petitioner claim that in response, on 8.4.2004, it furnished the requisite certificate from HDFC Bank certifying that the petitioner had a sum of Rs. 19.8 lacs in its account.
Record shows that petitioner has been held disentitled to any land. from DDA as DDA noted that another society named ''Govind Dham Society'' had also applied for land. As per DDA petitioner as well as Govind Dham Society were maintaining offices from the same flat i.e. MIG, Flat No. IA Pocket-A, Phase-Ill, Ashok Vihar, Same person was functioning as the General Secretary of the two societies and that both had common set of office bearers.
Noting the facts afore-recorded, Commissioner (Lands), vide note dated 1.7.2004 opined that same group of persons have floated two societies. He further opined that except for one person in the profession of teaching all other office bearers were businessmen. He opined that it was case where people had connived together to obtain public land at concessional rates.
This is the basis on which DDA had issued the rejection letter dated 23.7.2004.
Unfortunately, DDA never intimated to the petitioner the facts on which Commissioner (Lands) has recorded the note dated 1.7.2004.
My be, petitioner had some explanation to furnish.
It was expected from DDA to have notified the petitioner that on the basis of information recorded in the note dated 1.7.2004, it proposed not to make any allotment.
Perusal of the file shows that considering entitlement of the petitioner, noting that paper formalities and solvency of the petitioner. At no stage was the petitioner notified the facts recorded in Commissioner (Lands) note dated 1.7.2004.
Needless to state, subject to eligibility every person has a right to be fairly considered when government distributes land or makes available land at concessional rates. Fairness in action requires that the state and its instrumentalities must notify the person affected any fact which has come to the notice of the authority and on which the authority seeks to deny benefit.
The writ petition stands disposed of quashing rejection letter date 23.7.2004 (Annexure P-6)
It would be open to DDA to issue a letter to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to furnish explanatory information. If said letter is issued by DDA, facts on which DDA wants to deny benefit to the petitioner would be intimated. Reply must be considered. Fresh order would be passed.
Another line of caveat. Issue of latest policy guidelines is not a subject matter of the present petition and therefore, present order would not be read ad if this Court has held on the entitlement of the petitioner to get a plot. As would be culled out from the order, this Court is concerned with the procedural fairness of identifying entitlement to the petitioner for being considered for allotment of a plot at concessional rates.
No costs.