Bunkar Allottee Union vs DDA and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—By these three petitions, the petitioners have alleged violation of the order dated 30th July, 1993 passed by this Court whereby a mandamus was issued to the DDA in following terms:

We will, therefore, allow the writ petition and will quash the draw of lots held on 25th November, 1991 for allotment of plots in Wazirpur Phase IV confined to 482 persons. A mandamus is issued to the first respondent to make allotment in the first instance to 650 persons who had been issued allotment-cum-demand letters and who had made payment in terms thereof. However, liberty is granted to the first respondent to recheck that list after due notice to all those persons falling in that list of 650 persons on the basis of scheme that it was for resettlement of all the weavers living in jhuggi-jhopris in Sawan Park earlier to 1985 and that those weavers had not been allotted any plot by the D.D.A, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, or any other local authority in the Union Territory of Delhi. This list shall be finalized within a period of three months from today and allotment made within six months from today. Petitioners will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 5,000/-. Rule is made absolute.

It is submitted by the petitioners that they were among the list of 650 persons as mentioned in the order and the respondent DDA had not allotted the plots to them despite the fact that they were not allotted any other plot by DDA or MCD or any other local bodies in Union Territory of India.

It is submitted by the counsel for respondent DDA that the above mandamus given by this Court included right of the respondent to scrutinize the list of 650 persons and allot the plots to bonafide persons only who were having jhuggies in Sawan Park. The attention of the Court is also drawn to the revised order passed by this Court on 24th October 1997 wherein this Court had observed that the list included people who were not bonafide residents of Sawan Park Weavers Colony and the list does not take into account the bonafide claim of genuine residents of the cluster who were residing before 1985.

It is submitted by counsel for the respondent that the case of three petitioners was scrutinized and it was found that these petitioners were not having any separate jhuggi in Sawan Park and an alternate plot in place of jhuggi where they were living had already been allotted to one of the family members. The scrutiny position was reflected in the status report filed by respondent DDA which is as under:

Status Report Petitioners in CCP No. 479/1999

Titled as

Bunker Allottee Union v. DDA

S.N o.

Name of petitioner

Plot No., if allotted

File No.

Sur vey List S.N o.

S.NO in the allot ment list

Remarks

1.

Sh. Udai Vir s/o Sh. Kanchi Lai

Not Allotted

F.23(9 38)187 /LSB(1 )

58/29 9

The offer of allotment made to the petitioner is rejected because proof of his resident (i.e. photocopy of the ration card) submitted by the petitioner is the same as submitted by h is father Shri Kanchi Lai. Against the said ration card/ jhugg one alternative plot No.A-170 was allotted to his father.

2.

Sh.

J as want s/o Shri Veni Ram

Not allotted

F.23(8 78)87/ LSB(l)

38/29 9

The offer of allotment made to the petitioner is rejected because proof of his resident (i.e. photocopy of the ration card) submitted by the petitioner is the same as submitted by his mother Smt. Chameli Devi w/o Sh. Veni Ram. Against the said ration card/jhuggi one alternative plot No.B-757, was allotted to his father.

Status Report Petitioners in CCP No. 488/1999

Titled as

Shri Kishori Lal v. DDA CCP No. 488/1999

S. No.

Name of petitioner

Plot No.

File No.

Survey List S. No.

S. No. in the allot ment list

Remarks

1.

Shri Kishori Lai s/o Sh. Lai Sahai

B-517

F.23(273)/ 87/LSB(l)

226/650

Allotted Plot No.B-517

2.

Sh. Babu Ram s/o Sh. Khushali Ram

B-655

F.23(338) 87/LSB(l)

283/650

Allotted plot no.B-655

3.

Sh. Mihi Lai s/o Sh. Gopi Nath

A-219

F.23(654)/ 87/LSBO)

43/29 9

Allotted plot No.A-219

4.

Sh. Murari Lai s/o Sh. Pyare Lai

Not all owe d

F.23(940)/ 87/LSBO)

60/29 9

The offer of allotment made to the petitioner is rejected because proof of his resident (i.e. photocopy of the ration card) submitted by the petitioner is the same as submitted by his father Shri Pyare Lai. Against the said ration card/ jhuggi one alternative plot no.B-702 was allotted to his father.

5.

Sh. Dev Lai s/o Dhoji Ram

B-569

F.23(839)/ 87/LSBO)

181/2 99

Allotted PlotNo.B-569

6.

Sh. Jai Singh s/o Tulsi Ram

A-22

F.23(294)/ 87/LSBO)

246/650

Allotted plot No.A-22

7.

Smt. Namwati w/o Sh. New a Ram

A-66

F.23(276)/ 87/LSBO)

229/650

Allotted Plot No.A-66

8.

Sh. Sanker Lai s/o Sh. Khema

B-561

F.23(422)/ 87/LSBO)

347/650

Allotted Plot No.B-561

9.

Sh. Bhoop Singh s/o Kanchi Singh

B-647

F.23(505)/ 87/LSBO)

407/650

Allotted Plot No.B-647

10.

Smt. Shakuntila

B-523

F. 23(417)/

342/650

-

Allotted Plot No.B-523

w/o Ram Prasad

87/LSBO)

11.

Sh.NarayanaLais/o ShriKanhya Lai

A-70

F.23(13)/8 7/LSBO)

13/650

Allotted Plot No.A-70

12.

Sh. Kashi Ram s/o Sh.Laxman Prasad

A-116

F.23(309)/ 87/LSBO)

259/650

Allotted Plot No.A-116

13.

Smt. Rani w/o Tulsi Prasad

A-424

F.23(10)/8 7/LSBO)

10/650

Allotted Plot No.A-424

14.

Sh. Kamar Pal s/o Sh. Lala Ram

B-717

F.23(689)/ 87/LSBO)

210/2 99

Allotted Plot No.B-717

Status Report Petitioners in CCP No. 490/1999

Titled as

Shri Devi v. DDA CCP No. 490/1999

S. No.

Name of petitioner

Plot No.

File No.

SurveyListS. No.

S. No. in the allotment list

Remarks

1.

Sh. Devi Ram s/o Sh. Nanu Ram

B-540

F.23(278)/ 87/LSBO)

231/650

Plot No. B-540, allotted to the petitioner.

2.

Sh. Vinod Kumar s/o Sh. Shobha Ram

A-6

F. 23(111)/ 87/LSBO)

95/650

Plot No. A-6, allotted to the petitioner.

3.

Sh.Chirajni Lai s/o Sh. Hukam Singh

Not allotted

F.23(691/ 87/LSBO)

The case of the petitioner was examined in the individual file.

8/299

The offer of allotment made to the petitioner is rejected because proof of his resident (i.e. photocopy of the ration card) submitted by the petitioner is the same as submitted by his father Shri Hukam Singh. Against the said ration card/jhuggi one alternative plot No. B-715, was allotted to his father.

4.

Sh. Siya Ram s/o Sh. Bihari Lal

A-383

F.23(921)/ 87/LSB(I)

The case of the petitioner was examined in the individual file.

144/29 9

Plot No. A-383, allotted to the petitioner.

5.

Sh. Dori Lal s/o Sh. Khayali Ram

B-515

F.23(762)/ 87/LSB(I)

The case of the petitioner was examined in the individual file.

170/29 9

Plot No. B-515, allotted to the petitioner.

6.

Sh. Parsandi Lal s/o Sh. Kalyan Singh

A-355

F.23(777)/ 87/LSB(I)

The case of the petitioner was examined in the individual file.

118/29 9

Plot No. A-355, allotted to the petitioner.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that non-holding of a separate ration card was no ground to reject the claim of the petitioners. He referred to judgments in the Writ Petition No. 17559 of 2005 Dal Chand v. DDA decided on 2nd February 2006 and Writ Petition No. 747 of 2003 Puran Lal v. DDA decided on 4th October 2004 wherein this Court had held that the ration card was not a conclusive proof of the factum of any residence and the petitioner had sufficiently proved that voters list for the year 1979, 1989 and 1983 he was residing in a jhuggi separate from his father and thus was entitled for a separate plot.

The respondent''s counsel on the other hand, relied on judgment passed in CW 810 of 2002 on 24th July, 2002 also a judgment in respect of re? settlement of the persons under the same scheme of Sawan Park wherein this Court observed that vide its order dated 30th July, 1993, Court had given further liberty to DDA to recheck the list after due notice and this verification was carried out. The Court observed that the petitioner (in that case) was a member of the family of Chander Pal, his father and it was Chander Pal who was entitled to the alternate plot and it was not the case that each and every member of the family had to be issued separate allotment. Since Chander Pal had already been allotted plot, the petitioner would not be entitled for another plot. This Court relied upon the ration card of the petitioner in order to see that he formed part of the family of Chander Pal and the writ petition of the petitioner was dismissed. Similarly in the case of Beerpal v. DDA CW No. 6576 of 2000, similar claim of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on the ground that the petitioner formed a part of the family of his father. This Court relied upon the scrutiny carried out by DDA in Dal Chand''s case(supra) also. It is also submitted by counsel for respondent that present case was not similar to Dal Chand''s case (supra). The petitioner in Dal Chand''s case (supra) had already constructed over the allotted plot after possession was given to him and this Court observed that since the petitioner had invested money for construction of the house and unless fraud was not established, the case should not be reopened. Similar is the situation in Puran Lal''s (supra) case.

It is an undisputed fact that the respondent was given liberty to scrutinize the list of 650 persons and issue allotment letters only to those who were genuinely entitled to an alternative plot. There was no mandate given by this Court that each member of the family living in a jhuggi was entitled for a separate alternative plot. Scrutiny in respect of the persons who were entitled to have alternative plot was to be carried out by DDA and this scrutiny was allowed even in respect of 650 persons against whom the order was passed.

I consider that since the respondent, in scrutiny has found that the plots had already been allotted to the other family members of the petitioners and petitioners were not entitled to another separate and alternative plot, no contempt was made out. All the above petitions are hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.