AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.—The Petitioner, claiming to be the allottee of shop No. 512, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi-110 006, filed this petition for directing the Respondents Department of Internal Security, Rehabilitation Division of the Union of India and the MCD to fix the valuation of the said shop in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 and the Rules (of the year 1955) framed there under and to allot the same to the Petitioner, as a displaced person, on rental basis. Relief is also claimed for direction to the Respondents to have transferred the ownership rights in respect of the said shop and lease hold rights in respect of the land underneath the shop in favor of the Petitioner.
A perusal of the order sheet shows that the Petitioner along with the writ petition had not filed any document of title in his favor. This Court on 21st July, 1995 ordered that the matter will be considered only when the document of title is filed.
The Petitioner thereafter filed additional documents which were considered by this Court on 21st August, 1995. It was observed that the said documents indicated that in lieu of Khokha No. 704 earlier allotted to the Petitioner, Shop No. 512 was allotted to the Petitioner. On the statement of the Petitioner that documents of title with respect to the said shop had not been executed in his favor though he is in possession thereof and further that the documents had been executed in favor of others, Rule was issued on the petition.
Neither of the Respondents has filed a counter affidavit in spite of repeated opportunities. On 28th January, 2010 on oral prayer of the Petitioner, Government of NCT of Delhi through Evacuee Property Cell was impleaded as Respondent No. 3. The said Respondent also in spite of opportunities has not filed any counter affidavit. The counsels have been heard.
The counsel for the Respondent has invited attention to Annexure XIV at page 80 of the paper book, being the reply dated 25th May, 1993 of the Department of Internal Security, Rehabilitation Division (Settlement) to the Petitioner in response to the claim of the Petitioner for conferment of ownership rights in the shop upon him. In the said reply, it was stated that no notice calling upon the Petitioner to pay the cost of land and super structure had been issued and as per the terms and conditions prescribed on 27th October, 1989 for grant of ownership rights qua the shops in Lajpat Rai Market, the cost of land underneath the shop is to be charged from the allottees @50% of the pre-determined commercial rates notified and existing in Chandni Chowk area on the date of transfer, plus ground rent. It was also informed that the lease deed in respect of the land is to be issued by Respondent MCD since the land underneath belonged to Respondent MCD.
The Petitioner by the said letter was also informed that the Government had not taken any decision earlier to grant ownership rights of the shop in the said market. Attention of the Petitioner was invited to W.P.(C) No. 197/1988 filed by Old Lajpat Rai Market Traders Association, also claiming ownership rights of the shops on the basis of capitalized value equivalent to twenty years annual rent as against the rates aforesaid laid down by the government on 27th October, 1989 (supra). In the Writ Petition (C) No. 197/1988 filed by the Association, the demand at the said rate was impugned. The Government contested the said writ petition filed by the Association by pleading that Lajpat Rai Market did not form part of the compensation pool and as such the Rules under which the ownership rights of the rehabilitation markets were earlier transferred to the displaced persons against verified claims under the Displaced Persons (C and R) Rules were not applicable to Lajpat Rai Market and that the shops in Lajpat Rai Market were being transferred to the allottees as per the Cabinet decision under the Directorate of Estates. The writ petition filed by the Association was dismissed vide judgment dated 22nd October, 1990 finding that no case of discrimination of Lajpat Rai Market was made out.
The Petitioner was thus informed vide the said letter dated 25th May, 1993 supra that ownership could be transferred in his favor upon his clearing the arrears of license fee and upon payment of the transfer charges applicable at the time of transfer and complying with the other formalities.
The Petitioner though has filed the said letter dated 25th May, 1993 himself before this Court but has not controverted the contents thereof. Rather it has again been re-agitated that the Lajpat Rai Market is covered by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the price of transfer is to be determined in accordance with the Act. The said question having been finally decided in writ petition preferred by the Association and in which it was held that the market is not covered by the Act cannot be re-agitated.
Faced with the aforesaid, the counsel for the Petitioner seeks adjournment to consider the matter.
The matter has remained pending for the last fifteen years. The document from which the Petitioner is found disentitled to the relief has been produced by the Petitioner himself. The Petitioner if not before filing the writ petition at least thereafter in the last fifteen years ought to have obtained proper instructions in this respect. The matter cannot now be adjourned.
The counsel for the Petitioner has next contended that the title of the Petitioner is being changed by the Respondents from that of a tenant to that of a licensee. Reliance in this regard is placed on the rent receipts filed by way of additional documents as aforesaid in which the payment received from the Petitioner is described as rent. The Petitioner has however since also placed before this Court the copy of letter dated 17th May, 1969 of allotment in his favor. From a perusal of the said letter, it appears that the Petitioner was earlier occupying a stall in Lajpat Rai Market and in lieu thereof and on the condition of removing himself from the said stall was allotted the shop. The said letter does not expressly state whether the allotment was as a tenant or as a licencee. Besides the fact that no such relief has been claimed in the petition, such declaration of the title in which the Petitioner was put into possession of the shop cannot be given in writ jurisdiction, being a mixed question of law and fact.
The counsel for the Petitioner has lastly urged that the Petitioner had offered the monies to the Respondents but notwithstanding the same, the ownership was not transferred in favor of the Petitioner. From a perusal of the file, it appears that the Petitioner was not offering / paying the price as laid down by the Respondents but was wanting the price to be fixed under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and it is for this reason that the ownership rights were not transferred to the Petitioner.
Once the Division Bench of this Court in the writ petition filed by the Association has already held that the said market and the shops therein are not covered by the Displaced Persons Act, the question of the Petitioner being entitled to fixation of price in accordance with the same does not arise. Of course if the Policy of transfer of ownership rights still exists, the Petitioner in accordance therewith and law shall be entitled to the benefit thereof if so found entitled.
With the aforesaid observations, the petition is dismissed. I refrain from imposing any cost though the Petitioner is found to have indulged in re-litigation.