Pushpa Wanti & Ors vs DDA

,,,,,,,

Rajiv Shakdher, J",,,,,,,

Preface:-,,,,,,,

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.02.2014 passed by the respondent i.e. the Delhi Development Authority (hereafter referred,,,,,,,

to as “DDAâ€​).,,,,,,,

The principal and the only grievance of the petitioners is that their request for upgradation for allotment of a plot under category A of the Gadgil,,,,,,,

Assurance Scheme (in short “the schemeâ€​) in block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, has been rejected.",,,,,,,

Background:-,,,,,,,

The petitioners have approached this Court for the third time.,,,,,,,

3.1. In the first instance, they had instituted a writ petition which was numbered as W.P. (C) No. 9024/2007. This writ petition was disposed of by this",,,,,,,

Court on 04.07.2012. Via this order, the petitioners were directed to make a comprehensive representation to the DDA, with a corresponding direction",,,,,,,

to the DDA, to dispose of the same within twelve weeks.",,,,,,,

3.2. Notably, this direction came to be passed on account of the fact that the petitioners had taken a stand in the rejoinder (based on certain",,,,,,,

documents) which, according to the Court, the DDA had not had a chance to rebut.",,,,,,,

3.3. Consequent to the aforementioned direction issued by this Court, the petitioners made a representation on 17.07.2012 which was disposed of by",,,,,,,

the DDA vide order dated 17.04.2013.,,,,,,,

3.4. In this order i.e. order dated 17.04.2013 passed by the DDA, it was noticed that the petitioners had produced before the authority that had passed",,,,,,,

the order i.e. Director (Lands), the following documents in original.",,,,,,,

(i) The date of birth certificate of Shri Madan Lal (who is the father of petitioner No. 2 to 7 and husband of Smt. Pushpa Wanti). This certificate,,,,,,,

showed Shri Madan Lal’s date of birth as 11.01.1930 and the place of his birth as Multan (now, in Pakistan).",,,,,,,

(ii) Copy of Ration Card dated 20.07.1950 which bore the name of Shri Madan Lal.,,,,,,,

(iii) Notice of payment/assessment of damage notice dated 07.01.1965, issued by DDA/COD. The period under this notice spanned from 01.01.1952",,,,,,,

till 31.03.1964,,,,,,,

(iv) An unsigned census slip.,,,,,,,

(v) Receipts for payment of damages issued by the DDA between 1965 and 1985.,,,,,,,

(vi) Demolition Slip dated 30.03.2000,,,,,,,

3.5. Furthermore, the aforementioned order i.e. order dated 17.04.2013 also adverted to the fact that petitioner No. 1 (i.e. Smt. Pushpa Wanti) had",,,,,,,

been recommended for allotment of a plot in category B under the Scheme and that her husband’s request for upgradation to category A was,,,,,,,

rejected vide DDA’s letter dated 04.11.1980 on the following ground:,,,,,,,

“….that your request for placing you under Category 'A' cannot be acceded to because the occupation of site in question is post August 1950.,,,,,,,

However, you have been placed in Category 'B' by the Allotment Committee…..â€​",,,,,,,

3.6. This apart, in the very same order, it was pointed out that the petitioners had failed to produce the following documents:",,,,,,,

(i) Refugee Registration Certificate in the name of Shri Madan Lal i.e. the husband of petitioner No. 1,,,,,,,

(ii) Voter’s list of 1951showing the name of Shri Madan Lal.,,,,,,,

(iii) Duly signed and dated census slip,,,,,,,

3.7. As noted hereinabove, the census slip which was produced by the petitioners was unsigned and undated.",,,,,,,

3.8. In the order, a reference was made to the fact that Shri Mandan Lal’s father i.e. one Late Shri Ram Dass had two wives, namely, Smt.",,,,,,,

Virawali and Smt. Lajwanti. The order went on to say that Late Shri Ram Dass, from his wedlock with Smt. Virawali, had two sons i.e. Shri Darshan",,,,,,,

Lal and Shri Madan Lal and that from his wedlock with Smt. Lajwanti he had one son, namely, Shri Suraj Prakash.",,,,,,,

3.9. The order adverted to the fact that Smt. Lajwanti had succeeded to the property of Late Shri Ram Dass who was allotted a plot under the,,,,,,,

Scheme and that she, in turn, had executed a registered will in favour of Shri Suraj Prakash.",,,,,,,

The order concluded by adverting to the fact that it is on account of this reason Shri Madan Lal, the husband of petitioner No. 1, was not issued a",,,,,,,

separate Refugee Registration Certificate although he may have migrated alongwith his father to India upon partition.,,,,,,,

4.1. It was reasoned in the order that the Scheme envisaged allotment of a plot to the “family head†and not to all members of the family. In this,,,,,,,

behalf, a reference was made to the property numbered as T-5335/8A, WEA, Karol Bagh.",,,,,,,

4.2. It was, thus, held that the petitioners could not be considered for upgradation to category A; as was conveyed to them vide letter dated",,,,,,,

04.11.1980. Curiously, the order also went on to state that the legal heirs of Shri Madan Lal (i.e. the petitioners) were claiming rehabilitation on the",,,,,,,

basis of the same property qua which petitioner No. 1’s father-in-law i.e. Late Shri Ram Dass had been allotted a plot even though allotment,,,,,,,

under category B had already been recommended qua petitioner no. 1.,,,,,,,

4.3. Being aggrieved, the petitioners, once again, approached this Court by way of a writ petition which was numbered as W.P. (C) 5533/2013. This",,,,,,,

writ petition was disposed of via order dated 03.09.2013. The Court, after noting the operative directions contained in the DDA’s order dated",,,,,,,

17.04.2013, concluded as follows:",,,,,,,

“However, this Court is of the view that the petitioners’ placement in Category-A had to be decided only on the basis as to whether",,,,,,,

petitioners were in occupation of site in question prior to August, 1950 or not.",,,,,,,

In the present instance, the petitioners have relied upon a ration card dated 20th July, 1950 issued in favour of petitioner No.1’s",,,,,,,

husband, i.e., prior to the cut off date. However, in the impugned order, the Director (Lands) had not dealt with the said document at all.",,,,,,,

Consequently, the impugned order dated 17th April, 2013 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Director (Lands) to consider",,,,,,,

the petitioner’s fresh representation in the light of the ration card dated 20th July, 1950 issued in favour of petitioner No.1’s",,,,,,,

husband along with documents issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi dated 14thAugust, 1963 as well as the Census of Squatters",,,,,,,

which indicates that the petitioners’ occupation was of 1948.,,,,,,,

The petitioners are directed to file a file a fresh representation along with all relevant documents within a period of two weeks.,,,,,,,

The Director (Lands) is directed to decided [sic: decide] the petitioners representation by way of a speaking order within a further period,,,,,,,

of twelve weeks.,,,,,,,

The petitioner’s are directed to appear before the Director (Lands) on 30th September, 2013 at 3 p.m.",,,,,,,

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.â€​",,,,,,,

4.4. As directed, the petitioners filed a fresh representation which was thereafter disposed of via the impugned order dated 24.02.2014.",,,,,,,

It is in this background that the petitioners, as noticed above, have instituted the present writ petition.",,,,,,,

Submission of Counsel:-,,,,,,,

Arguments on behalf of the petitioners have been advanced by Mr. J.K. Bhola, Advocate, whereas on behalf of the DDA, submissions have been",,,,,,,

made by Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate.",,,,,,,

6.1. Mr. Bhola has, broadly, submitted that the controversy in issue falls in a narrow compass i.e. as to whether or not the petitioners were entitled to",,,,,,,

be upgraded to category A under the Scheme based on a determination whether they were occupants of the subject hutment prior to 15.08.1950.,,,,,,,

6.2. Mr. Bhola submitted that the controversy, if any, concerning the eligibility of petitioners under the Scheme stood concluded in their favour, in view",,,,,,,

of the fact that they had already been considered fit for allotment of a plot under category B. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhola, all that the Court had",,,,,,,

to consider was (which was also the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round on 03.09.2013, when W.P. (C) 5533/2013 was disposed of) as",,,,,,,

to whether or not the petitioners occupation of the subject hutment preceded 15.08.1950.,,,,,,,

6.3. As per Mr. Bhola, the petitioners’ assertion that their occupation of subject hutment preceded 15.08.1950 is supported by the following",,,,,,,

documents:,,,,,,,

(i) The ration card issued in favour of Shri Madan Lal dated 20.07.1950.,,,,,,,

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner’s certificate dated 14.08.1963, which alluded to the fact that Shri Madan Lal had been carrying on the vocation of a",,,,,,,

goldsmith since 1947.,,,,,,,

(iii) The squatters census slip which showed that Shri Madan Lal had been in occupation of the subject hutment in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, since",,,,,,,

1948.,,,,,,,

6.4. Besides this, Mr. Bhola also relied upon the receipts, which, according to him, evidenced payment of damages to the concerned Municipal",,,,,,,

Corporation since 1952.,,,,,,,

On the other hand, Mr. Mathur relied upon the impugned order to resist the relief sought for in the writ petition.",,,,,,,

7.1. Mr. Mathur, based on the impugned order contended that the genuineness of the ration card produced by the petitioner was in doubt. For this",,,,,,,

purpose, he relied upon the form filed by Shri Madan Lal on 15.11.1968 where the number of the ration card was given AJ-341450. This number was",,,,,,,

sought to be cross-referenced with the number given on the ration card produced by the petitioners. The number given on the ration card is 141590.,,,,,,,

7.2. Besides this, Mr. Mathur also contended that the Deputy Commissioner’s certificate on which the petitioners had placed reliance was of no",,,,,,,

use as it only alluded to the fact that Shri Madan Lal had been carrying on the vocation of a goldsmith since 1947.,,,,,,,

7.3. Furthermore, Mr. Mathur also referred to the communication dated 26.11.2013 submitted by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (in short",,,,,,,

“NDMCâ€​) to demonstrate that the document tilted as “census of squattersâ€​, according to NDMC, had no relevance.",,,,,,,

7.4. It was contended that NDMC had not been able to verify the document since it pertained to a period qua which it did not have the records.,,,,,,,

7.5. This apart, Mr. Mathur laid emphasis on the fact that all along Shri Madan Lal had been claiming that the hutment in lieu of which he was seeking",,,,,,,

allotment of a plot under the Scheme was numbered as T-5335/2, whereas in the affidavits filed on 31.07.1972 and 05.03.1979 his address has been",,,,,,,

disclosed as T-5335.,,,,,,,

7.6. Furthermore, Mr. Mathur relied upon the survey list generated by the DDA concerning unauthorized squatters in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh,",,,,,,,

on 11.05.1981, to demonstrate that in the subject hutment No. T-5335/2, one, Shri Nanak Chand resided and not Shri Madan Lal.",,,,,,,

7.7. Furthermore, according to Mr. Mathur, it is only after the death of Shri Madan Lal on 02.11.1999, the petitioners have raked up the claim which",,,,,,,

lay dormant since 04.11.1980. Mr. Mathur submitted that there was no explanation for delay between 1980 and 1999. Analysis and Reasons: -,,,,,,,

As was noticed right at the beginning, the principal grievance and, in fact, the only grievance of the petitioners is with regard to the DDA refusing to",,,,,,,

upgrade their category from “B†to “Aâ€. This was also the scope of the remand order by this Court on 03.09.2013 in W.P. (C) 5533/2013.,,,,,,,

The operative directions have already been extracted by me in paragraph 4.3 above.,,,,,,,

8.1. However, the DDA, on remand, based on a fresh representation filed by the petitioners qua which opportunity was given by this Court vide order",,,,,,,

dated 03.09.2013 has strayed into the arrears which were not strictly within the ambit of the remand order.,,,,,,,

8.2. That being said, it could perhaps be argued by the DDA that while ascertaining the petitioners right for upgradation of category it was empowered",,,,,,,

to look into their eligibility for allotment of a plot.,,,,,,,

In my view, this stand of the DDA would have to be rejected for the reason that it flies in the face of its own communication dated 04.11.1980.",,,,,,,

This communication was addressed by DDA to the deceased Shri Madan Lal. The said communication reads as follows:,,,,,,,

“Dear Sir,",,,,,,,

With reference to your representation dated Sep. 80 on the aforecited subject 1 am to inform you that your request for placing you under Category-A,,,,,,,

cannot be acceded to because your occupation of the site in question is post-August, 1950. However, you have been placed in Category-B, by the",,,,,,,

Allotment Committee.â€​,,,,,,,

(emphasis is mine),,,,,,,

9.1. As would be evident upon a plain reading of this communication, the only point of dispute between the deceased Shri Madan Lal and the DDA",,,,,,,

was concerning the category in which he was slotted. According to the DDA, the deceased Shri Madan Lal had come to occupy the subject allotment",,,,,,,

“Post-August, 1950â€. Therefore, the tenability of the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 would have to be examined in the background of this",,,,,,,

marker.,,,,,,,

Mr. Mathur has tried to contest the assertions of the petitioners that they were in occupation of the subject hutment prior to 15.08.1950 by alluding,,,,,,,

to the following documents and aspects: -,,,,,,,

(i) First and foremost, it is stated that the ration card is illegible. Incidentally, this is also one of the observations made in the impugned order dated",,,,,,,

24.02.2014,,,,,,,

(i)(a) In furtherance of this objection, it is also stated that the number given on the ration card produced by the petitioners which was 141590 is",,,,,,,

discrepant when cross referenced with the form submitted to the DDA on 15.11.1968.According to Mr. Mathur, the ration card number given in the",,,,,,,

form is AJ-341450.,,,,,,,

(ii) The second objection taken by Mr. Mathur is with regard to the document titled “Census of Squattersâ€. It is Mr. Mathur’s contention that,,,,,,,

NDMC was unable to vouch for the veracity of this document.,,,,,,,

(iii) The third objection taken by Mr. Mathur is that the form dated 15.11.1968 gave the hutment number as 8A/T-5335 and not 8A/T-5335/2. (iii)(a) In,,,,,,,

support of this objection, reference was also made to the two affidavits filed by deceased Shri Madan Lal dated 31.07.1972 and 05.03.1979 wherein",,,,,,,

he had described his hutment as T/5335, 8-A Block, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi.",,,,,,,

(iv) Fourthly, Mr. Mathur stated that the name of the deceased could not be found in the Voters list of June 1951. In support of his plea, reliance was",,,,,,,

also placed by Mr. Mathur on the surveys conducted by the DDA in 1981 and 1998.,,,,,,,

(iv)(a) According to Mr. Mathur, against the hutment where the deceased Shri Madan Lal claimed he resided i.e. T-5335/2, the survey list showed",,,,,,,

that the resident was one Mr. Nanak Chand. The argument, thus advanced, was that the claim for allotment of plot under the Scheme lodged by the",,,,,,,

deceased Shri Madan Lal was false.,,,,,,,

(iv)(b) In addition to the survey list, reference was also made to the death certificate produced concerning the deceased Shri Madan Lal wherein his",,,,,,,

address was given as E-2/129-A, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi.",,,,,,,

(v) The fifth objection was based on the Election card wherein as on 01.01.1994 the deceased Shri Madan Lal’s age was shown as 59 years. It,,,,,,,

was stated that in the 1961 electoral rolls generated for Delhi, the deceased Shri Madan Lal’s age was shown as 26 years.",,,,,,,

(v)(a) It was, thus, contended that if the death certificate concerning Shri Madan Lal and the aforementioned documents were taken into account",,,,,,,

then, in 1947, he would have been aged between 12 and 13 years.",,,,,,,

10.1. From this, Mr. Mathur, sought, to conclude (as was also concluded in the impugned order) that the deceased Shri Madan Lal would have been",,,,,,,

residing with his father in the hutment numbered as T-5335 and not in a separate hutment.,,,,,,,

I will deal with each of the assertions in seriatim.,,,,,,,

11.1. Insofar as the first objection is concerned that the ration card produced was illegible, I may only indicate that the impugned order records that the",,,,,,,

original ration card was produced before the Director (Lands), DDA who passed the impugned order. The photocopy which is available on record,",,,,,,,

though dim, clearly sets out the name of the person to whom it is issued, the date of issuance, and the number.",,,,,,,

11.2. A perusal of the details given therein shows that the ration card was issued in the name of the deceased Shri Madan Lal; the date of issuance is,,,,,,,

given therein as 20.07.1950; and the number of the ration card is 141590. Therefore, the observations in the impugned order and the argument of Mr.",,,,,,,

Mathur that the details given in the ration card are not legible, to say the least, are not accurate.",,,,,,,

11.3. The other argument made qua the purported unreliability of the ration card is based on the number of the ration card given in the form filed by,,,,,,,

the deceased Shri Madan Lal which is dated 15.11.1968 and is titled “Occupied any public land before 15th Augustâ€​.,,,,,,,

11.4. I may, for the moment, extract the entries given in the form which may be relevant for dealing with the present objection as well as the other",,,,,,,

objections:-,,,,,,,

“OCCUPIED ANY PUBLIC LAND BEFORE 15th AUGUST,,,,,,,

xxx,xxx,xxx,,,,,

I. PARTICUALRS,,,,,,,

Name,,Sh. Madan Lal,,,,,

xxx                    Â,xxx,xxx,,,,,

Ration Card No. of 1950 (please attach attested

copy of the same)",,AJ-341450,,,,,

xxx                    Â,xxx,xxx,,,,,

II. PARTICUALRS OF THE OCCUPIED LAND,,,,,,,

Municipal House No.,,8A/T-5335â€​,,,,,

16 Krishan Lal, S/o5365 A

HiraNand

17 Lal Chand, S/o Hira5365 A

Nand

18 Tilak Raj, S/o Amir5363 A

Chand

19 Shashi Daul, S/o Sh.5363

Tilak Raj

20 Sunder Shyam, S/o5363

Sh. Tilak Raj

21 Harish Chander, S/o5363

Tilak Raj

xxx xxx xxx xxx

23 C huni Lal, S/o5360 A

Fateh Chand

24 Nand Paul, S/o Shri5360

Chunilal

25 Kishori Lal, S/o5360

Chuni Lal

xxx xxx xxx xxx

29 Deputy Lal, S/o5355 A

Shivaji Lal

30 Madan Lal, S/o5355

Shivaji Lal

xxx xxx xxx xxx

33 Mohan Lal, S/o5398

NiranjannDass

34 S a t Paul, S/o5398

Niranjan Dass

xxx xxx xxx xxx

46 Ram Lal, S/o Shri5349 A

Mela Ram

47 Balbir, S/o Ram Lal5349

xxx xxx xxx xxx

51 Ram Lal, S/o Shri5353

Devi Dayal

52 O m Prakash S/o5353

Ram Lal

53 Jugal Kishore S/o5353/2

Om Prakash

xxx xxx xxx xxx

61 Smt. Lajwanti, W/o5335 A

Ram Dass

62 Darshan Lal, S/o5335

Ram Dass

xxx xxx xxx xxx

77 Niranjan Singh, S/o5327 A

Prabh Singh",16,"Krishan Lal, S/o

HiraNand",5365,A,29 Sq. Yds.,29 Sq. Yds.,

,17,"Lal Chand, S/o Hira

Nand",5365,A,29 Sq. Yds.,24 Sq. Yds.,

,18,"Tilak Raj, S/o Amir

Chand",5363,A,68 Sq. Yds.,70 Sq. Yds.,

,19,"Shashi Daul, S/o Sh.

Tilak Raj",5363,,,,

,20,"Sunder Shyam, S/o

Sh. Tilak Raj",5363,,,,

,21,"Harish Chander, S/o

Tilak Raj",5363,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,

,23,"C huni Lal, S/o

Fateh Chand",5360,A,90Sq. Yds.,90Sq. Yds.,

,24,"Nand Paul, S/o Shr

Chunilal",i5360,,,,

,25,"Kishori Lal, S/o

Chuni Lal",5360,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,

,29,"Deputy Lal, S/o

Shivaji Lal",5355,A,58Sq. Yds,19Sq. Yds.,

,30,"Madan Lal, S/o

Shivaji Lal",5355,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,,

,33,"Mohan Lal, S/o

NiranjannDass",5398,,,,

,34,"S a t Paul, S/o

Niranjan Dass",5398,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,,

,46,"Ram Lal, S/o Shr

Mela Ram",i5349,A,50Sq. Yds.,50Sq. Yds.,

,47,"Balbir, S/o Ram Lal",5349,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,

,51,"Ram Lal, S/o Shr

Devi Dayal",i5353,,25RSq. Yds,25+35Sq. Yds.,

,52,"O m Prakash S/o

Ram Lal",5353,,35 Com.Sq. Yds.,R+CSq. Yds.,

,53,"Jugal Kishore S/o

Om Prakash",5353/2,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,,

,61,"Smt. Lajwanti, W/o

Ram Dass",5335,A,29Sq. Yds.,29Sq. Yds.,

,62,"Darshan Lal, S/o

Ram Dass",5335,,,,

,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,,

,77,"Niranjan Singh, S/o

Prabh Singh",5327,A,120 Sq. Yds.,60 Sq. Yds.,

,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,

78,"S m t . Bhagwanti,

Wd/o Prabh Singh",5327,,,,,

79,"Madan Lal, S/o

Ram Dass",5335,B,,,,

xxx,xxx,xxx,xxx,Xxx,,,

142,"Bihari Lal, S/o

Radha Mal",5334/ 4,,,,,

143,"Deputy Lal, S/o

Charan Singh",5334/ 3,,,,,

144,"Tila k Raj, S/o

Deputy Lal",5334/ 5,,,,,

145,"Shanti Devi, W/o

Kasturi Lal",5334/ 3,A,33 Sq. Yds.,33 Sq. Yds.,,

146,"Nanak Chand, S/o

Makhan Singh",5335/ 2,,,,,

one, since 1947 would have to be given weight with regard to not only his refugee status, and the place of his residence (i.e. T-5335/2) but also qua his",,,,,,,

vocation and the fact that he had been engaged in, independently, eking out his livelihood since 1947.",,,,,,,

On the preponderance of probability, and based on the material placed on record, one would have to agree with the petitioners that they were",,,,,,,

squatters of the public land prior to 15.08.1950 and that their branch of the family was separate from the Late Shri Ramdass.,,,,,,,

Conclusion: -,,,,,,,

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I find merit in the contentions of the petitioners that the impugned order is contrary to the record and, in a",,,,,,,

certain sense, goes beyond the remit of the remand order dated 03.09.2013.",,,,,,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed.",,,,,,,

The petitioners will be upgraded to category “A†and, accordingly, will be given all benefits as were made available to those who fell in the",,,,,,,

category “Aâ€​.,,,,,,,

The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.,,,,,,,