Shri Mange vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr

G.S. Sistani, J.—Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the present petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. The

necessary facts for disposal of this writ petition are that land of the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1992 vide award dated

02.04.1993. The possession of the land of the petitioner was taken over on 26.08.1992 even prior to the award being made under the emergency

clause. The land of the petitioner forming part of the Khasra No. 19/20 Min measuring 4 Bighas 5 Biswas was situated in the revenue estate of

village Kakrola and was acquired for the Delhi Development Authority. As per the policy, the petitioner applied for an alternate plot to the Land &

Building Department on 02.05.2006. A recommendation was made by the office of Land & Building Department to the Commissioner (Land),

DDA, copy of this communication has been placed on record. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the recommendation having been

made for two decades, the request for alternate plot has not be considered by the DDA despite the letter dated 02.05.2006 and the

recommendation of 2006. It is also contended that other similarly situated persons have been allotted alternate plots. The inaction and denial of a

plot by the respondents has forced the petitioner to knock the doors of this court for justice.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA wherein it has been stated that although the DDA received a letter of recommendation, the DDA

also issued a letter dated 22.09.2009 to the Land & Building Department for verification of the genuineness of the recommendation made in favour

of the recommendees. The DDA received a letter dated 14.12.2009 from Land & Building Department along with a list giving details of

recommendees and verification report. The name of the petitioner was shown at mention at serial No. 47, however, following remarks were

mentioned against the name of the petitioner:

The recommendation of allotment Committee at page 32/C not signed by the Chairman/ Principal Secretary L&B. However, the same has been

signed in the noting side at page 61/n.

It is further stated in the counter affidavit that in view of this position it was decided at the level of the Vice-Chairman, DDA, that those cases

may be included in the draw where the recommendations are absolutely clear and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was not included for the

draw. It is also stated that reminders were sent to the Land & Building Department, but no response was received.

Counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent No. 1, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit filed by

respondent No. 1, read as under:

That Accordingly, in response to DDA''s query, vide letter dated 14.12.2009, it was conveyed to the respondent No. 2-DDA that ""the

Recommendation of allotment committee at page 32/C not signed by the Chairman/R. Secretary L&B. However, the same has been signed in the

noting side at page 16/N."" In view of the aforesaid clarification/ verification, there was no need for any further verification from the end of the

answering respondent.

That the examination of the records reveals that no withdrawal letter has ever been issued against the aforesaid recommendee Shri Mange and

as such the recommendation of the Committee stands valid till date. The non-signing of minutes by the Chairman of the Committee, which was

neither intentional nor deliberate, may be termed as an inadvertent official error only in view of the fact that the aforesaid recommendation in favour

of the petitioner is confirmed and verified by the signature of the then chairmen of the Committee endorsed on the noting side of the file at page

16/N.

I have heard counsel for the parties. This is yet another case of inaction, lethargy and non-application of mind on the part of the Land & Building

Department and on the part of the DDA. The land of the petitioner was acquired way back in the year 1992 and possession was taken over, even

before the award was made, on 26.08.1992. The plaintiff applied for an alternate plot and a recommendation was made by the Land and Building

Department way back on 02.05.2006. In case there was any confusion in the mind of the DDA, it was for the DDA to have sought the necessary

clarification at the earliest and the Land & Building Department was duty-bound to give the clarification which has now been made in the counter

affidavit. On account of the careless and insensitive action of the respondents ultimately it is the petitioner who has been made to wait endlessly and

pushed from pillar to post and then forced to file the writ petition in this court.

This was not a case where any clarification was really required by the DDA as in case the Land & Building Department was not satisfied about

the genuineness of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner would not have been cleared by mentioning the same at Serial No. 47 at that point. The

Land & Building Department made the necessary clarification and the note-sheet has been signed. This was the explanation rendered by them and

it should have been accepted by DDA. On account of the attitude of the DDA valuable judicial time of this court has been wasted in entertaining

this writ petition as this matter could well have been resolved by the Land & Building Department and the DDA. This reflects a sorry state of

affairs and this is yet another case where a common citizen has been treated in a shoddy manner. The public authorities are meant for the public.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, with direction to DDA to include the name of the petition in the next draw for the recommended size of

the plot. Writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with total costs of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the DDA and Rs. 5,000/- to

be paid by the Land & Building Department) which shall be paid to the petitioner.