AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
CM Nos. 11478-11479/2011 in LPA No. 532/2011
CM Nos. 11489-11490/2011 in LPA No. 534/2011
Exemption applications are allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM No. 11477/2011 & LPA No. 532/2011
CM No. 11488/2011 & LPA No. 534/2011
These are applications for condonation of delay. We have heard Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Amit Sharma, learned Counsel for the Appellant on the question of delay. Before issuing notice to the Respondents, we have thought it appropriate to dwell into the issue on merits. Be it noted, while dealing with the said issue we have been assisted by Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India, Ms. Preeti Gupta, learned Counsel for DDA and Ms. Maninder Acharya, learned Counsel for the MCD.
The present intra-court appeals are directed against the order dated 10.12.2010 whereby the learned Single Judge by a common order dismissed two writ petitions, namely, W.P.(C) No.1288/1984 and W.P.(C) No.1342/1984.
It is worth noting that the factual matrix of both the writ petitions was similar and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petitions by a singular order. The Appellant in LPA 534/2011, is a society and the Appellants in LPA 532/2011 are residents of Block A of Defence Colony. They had prayed for issue of writ of mandamus directing Government of India and Land & Development Officer to transfer a plot of land admeasuring 2.8 acres in favour of the association, the Appellant in LPA 534/2011, and also for quashing of sale/transfer of plot admeasuring 0.72 acres in favour of Delhi Children Little Theatre (children theatre group, for short) by Land & Development Officer, and also for prohibiting the children theatre group from raising a theatre building or carry out any construction on the plot.
The facts in nutshell are that in the year 1947, for rehabilitation of the officers of armed forces, Navy and Air force, who were migrated to India on partition, area around the erstwhile village Kirlokari was developed. The said area is now known as Defence Colony, New Delhi. Plots were carved out and sold as per the Appellants at Rs. 22/- per square meter for residential plots and Rs. 23/- per square meter for corner plots. The Appellants have stated that an area admeasuring 2.8 acres were earmarked for Junior Commissioned Officers'' Club. It is claimed that representations were made for allotment of the said land for the club but without success. However, by the letter dated 31st October, 1972, assurance was given by the Ministry of Works and Housing, that the land would be made available to the Appellant society. It was/is the claim of the Appellants that the land should be made available to the Appellant society either free of cost or on payment of a nominal rate of Rs. 5,000/- per acre in terms of the press note issued in 1965. It is alleged that the land measuring 0.72 acre was transferred to the children theatre group for nominal consideration of Rs. 25,000/- though the said earmarked land was/is marked for the club in the zonal development land and that there is violation of Master Plan as well as layout plan as the theatre cannot come up at the said location. It is further alleged that if the theatre is allowed to come up it will lead to collapse of infrastructure as there are large number of houses in the surrounding area.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant but do not find any merit in the present appeal. The facts as have been explicit in the impugned decision show that the area measuring 0.72 acres was allotted to children theatre group in 1963 on payment of Rs. 25,000/-. They have been in possession of land since 1966 and it is their case that because of the objections raised by the Appellants and Ors. they have not been able to effectively use and carry out construction. Defence Colony was carved out of the land which was acquired in 1911 and was Nazul land. The ownership of the said land measuring 0.72 acre was never transferred to the Appellant society. Respondent authorities have pointed out that two plots measuring 6.2 acres plot and 3 acres were earmarked for Officer''s club in Sector "C" and JCO''s Club in Sector "A" respectively. These were to be developed by the Ministry of Defence but they did not show any interest in developing the clubs. Accordingly, 6.2 acres of land was divided into 4 plots and allotted to various institutions. Out of 3 acres of land earmarked for JCO''s club, 0.72 acre was carved out and allotted to the children theatre group. Before the allotment, the land use was changed to recreational. The said allotment had taken place way back in 1963. It also transpires that a club had already come up in Defence Colony. Therefore, the residents of the area have access and can utilize the club facilities.
Learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the submissions raised before him and came to hold that the documents or representations filed by the Petitioners do not establish that they have any right over land whose allotment was challenged. Mere representations made to authorities from time to time did not create any right in their favour. The Land & Development office had informed the Appellants way back on 18th April, 1962, that the land on which right has been claimed by the Appellants, belonged to the Government. The Appellants have not paid any amount towards cost of land and the payment has been made by the children theatre group. It has been further held that there was No. promise on the part of the Government authorities that the plot of land measuring 2.8 acres shall be transferred to the Appellants at the concessional or nominal price. Thus Appellants are not entitled to allotment in their favour even if for some reason, land allotted to the children theatre group is cancelled and the claim, therefore, for the allotment of the land is untenable.
With regard to violation of the Master Plan and the layout plan, learned single Judge has rightly relied upon the affidavit of the Delhi Development Authority. As per the said affidavit under the Zonal Development Plan, the use is indicated as partly for club and partly for social and cultural use (public and semi public use). Learned single Judge has further observed that the Appellant had not filed any document on the basis of which it can be inferred that the allotment of the plot to the children theatre group violates any statute, Master Plan or zonal plan. The children theatre group, it is pointed out, is a social service organization and its object and purpose is to advance and coordinate activities of school children and others. It is obvious that the children theatre group will have to use the plot as per zonal plan and not violate the same. Appellant cannot object to the use of plot as per zonal plan and in case of violation, the statutory authorities are is entitled to take action.
After opining this, learned single Judge has held thus:
In the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the Petitioners have failed to make out a case seeking directions from this Court to issue a writ to Union of India and L & DO to transfer or sell or lease the land admeasuring 2.8 acres at concessional rates or free of cost in favor of the Petitioners nor the Petitioners are entitled for a direction to quash the sale of portion of the land admeasuring.72 acres made by the UOI and L&DO to the Delhi Children''s Little Theatre.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion the analysis made by the learned Single Judge and the findings returned by him cannot be found fault with for the simon pure reason. The Appellants have not been able to prove that they were the allottees of the land in question and further the lands stood allotted in favour of the third Respondent in the year 1963. That apart, the writ petition was filed in 1984 for extension of the benefit on the ground that there is No. justification to grant the lease in favour of the third Respondent the theatre group. Hence, we concur with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, there is No. justification or warrant to issue notice on the question of limitation to the other Respondents and, accordingly, the applications for condonation of delay stand rejected and as an inevitable corollary the appeals stand dismissed in limine.