Shanti Devi vs G.S. Patnayak and Another

Rajiv Shakdher

The present contempt petition has been filed to seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violating the order dated 27.07.2011 passed in CM No. 10294/2011 in WP (C) 8938/2009. The brief background facts of the case are as follows :-

The petitioner who is a displaced person having migrated form West Pakistan in 1948 settled in India alongwith her family members. The petitioner and her family members unauthorisedly occupied plot no. T-5369A, Block 8A, Western Extension Area (WEA) of Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner alongwith several other families who were similarly circumstanced, was assured by the Government of India that she would be rehabilitated. This brought about the formulation of what is known as Gadgil Assurance Scheme (in short the Scheme).

Under the said scheme, which was formulated way back in 1970''s, based on the period when concerned family members had migrated to India, categories were drawn up. The categories which were formulated pursuant to a survey were as follows :-

Category ''A'' - those persons who had occupied premises before 1950

Category ''B'' - those persons who had occupied premises between 1950 to 1960

Category ''C'' - those persons who had occupied premises between 1960 to 1980

Since the petitioner''s claim for regularization of her occupation was not being processed by the DDA, she approached this court by way of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was numbered as WP (C) 532/1987. By order dated 19.09.2001, the said writ petition was disposed of. The order being short and crucial to the case of the petitioner is extracted in entirety for the sake of convenience hereinbelow :-

...The petitioner is an unauthorized occupant of land bearing No. T-5369-A, Block 8-A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The petitioner applied for regularization of the land under his alleged occupation since 1948, on the basis of Gadgil Assurance contained in Resolution No. 266 dated 16th October, 1970.

Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent/DDA states on instructions of Mr. J.R. Gaur, Assistant Director, that though the petitioner is not entitled for the allotment of land under the Gadgil Assurance, the DDA has taken a lenient view and placed him in Category ''C''. According to him, 25. Sq. yards of land will be allotted to the petitioner in the said area.

In view of the statement of learned counsel for the DDA, the writ petition does not survive and the same is disposed of.

However, the DDA will be bound by its statement, which we hereby record. The DDA is directed to make the allotment to the petitioner by December 31, 2001 Interim order stands vacated.

A reading of the aforesaid would show that based on the statement of, one, Mr. J.R. Gaur, Assistant Director in the DDA, the writ petition was disposed of. Mr. J.R. Gaur had taken a stand before the court that "the petitioner could be placed in Category ''C'' and 25 sq. yd. of land would be allotted to the petitioner in the said area".

It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner''s case was processed and a communication to that effect though after a delay of nearly six years was issued on 08.08.2007, indicating that the petitioners could be allotted a plot admeasuring 25. Sq. yd. in Narela.

The petitioner being dissatisfied in the manner in which her request had been disposed of, specially taking into account that she had been residing in the WEA of the Karol Bagh since 1948, approached this court by way of the second writ petition being : WP(C) 8938/2009. This writ petition was also disposed of vide order dated 09.03.20120, taking into account the fact that the petitioner was aged and given her medical condition, the possibility of allotting land to the petitioner, in the WEA of the Karol Bagh, was directed to be explored by the DDA.

Since no action was taken by the DDA qua the observations made in the order dated 09.03.2010, the petitioner moved an interlocutory application being : CM No. 10294/2010 in the disposed of writ petition being: WP(C) 8938/2009. The said application was dismissed on 04.08.2010, as there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the said date. It is in this background that the petitioner sought restoration of the said application; a fact which is not disputed before me.

Consequently, on 05.07.2011, CM No. 10294/2011 was once again taken up for hearing. On the said date, the court directed the DDA, through Mr. H.S. Marwah, Dy. Director, to take instructions as regards compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 09.03.2010. The returnable date in the application was 27.07.2011. On 27.07.2011, the court observed as follows :-

This order is in continuation of the order dated 5th July, 2011. The counsel for the respondent under instructions from Sh. H.S. Marwah, Dy. Director (Old Scheme), DDA states that the name of the petitioner has been included in the draw of lots scheduled on 18th August, 2011 and on which date, the allotment in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the directions contained in the order dated 9th March, 2010 shall be made. It is further stated that the allotment letter shall be issued within one week of 18th August, 2011 and possession shall be delivered to the petitioner as soon as the petitioner completes the formalities.

In view of the above statement of Mr. Marwah, the application is disposed of. It has been made known to Mr. Marwah that non-compliance of the statement made today will be contumacious....

(Emphasis supplied)

It is in this background that the captioned contempt petition came to be filed. In the contempt petition, various orders have been passed. Pertinently, there are two orders to which reference need be made. The first order is of 31.01.2012, when this court taking note of the brief history of this case, clearly opined that the order dated 19.09.2001 passed in the first writ petition filed by the petitioner i.e., WP (C) 532/1987 required the respondents to allot a land to the petitioner in the WEA of Karol Bagh. This view of the court quite clearly comes through in the following observations :-

...A copy of the order dated 19.09.2001 in WC No. 532/1987 preferred by the petitioner''s son has been produced before the Court. This order records the statement of the DDA made by the counsel on instruction from Mr. J.R. Gaur, Asst. Director that the petitioner''s son would be allotted Category-C plot. It records "According to him, 25 sq. yds. of land will be allotted to the petitioner in the said area". The expression "in the said area" refers to the petitioner''s unauthorized occupation over land situated in Block 8A, Western Extension Area, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The Court had specifically directed that the DDA will remain bound by its statement, which was taken on record. The DDA was directed to make allotment to the petitioner by 31.12.2001. What follows from this order is that the petitioner in the writ petition became entitled to 25 sq. yds. plot in WEA area.

The order passed in WC 8938/2009 is also in the same line. When this order was passed on 09.03.2010, the Court had again directed the DDA to explore the possibility of allotting to the petitioner a plot in the Western Extension Area, and in case no plot is available, to make allotment in Narela. It is an admitted position that plot of 25 sq. yds. are available in WEA, though they are categorized as Category B plots....

(Emphasis supplied)

In the order dated 30.04.2012, the court noted that the respondent had issued a communication dated 30.03.2012, confirming allotment to the petitioner of the plot situate at plot no. 63G, admeasuring 23 sq. yd. in Block 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi under the scheme. The court also observed that the respondents were demanding a premium of Rs. 48,60,692/-. It is because of the fact that a huge sum was being demanded of the petitioner that the court issued further directions on the said date requiring the respondents to show their file notings with regard to the rate of land prevalent in Shankar Road between 2008-2009 and the basis on which the rates had been increased by factoring in an increase at the rate of 12.5% p.a. on the market rate prevalent in 2008-2009.

Thereafter, the more relevant proceedings is the proceedings dated 06.07.2012, when I proceeded to record what had transpired on 31.01.2012. I may only note as I was informed that while the allotment in favour of the petitioner continued to be qua the plot allotted on 30.03.2012 i.e., plot no. 63G, Block No. 8A, WEA, Karol Bagh,, the area which the petitioner was to get is 25 sq. yds. and not 23.5 sq. yds. as recorded in the order dated 31.01.2012.

Therefore, in these circumstances, the only issue which remains to be addressed is, as to whether the petitioner is required to pay the premium asked for of her i.e., Rs. 48,60,692/-.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner was entitled to a category ''C'' plot at Narela, at the court''s behest she was allotted a plot in the WEA of Karol Bagh. Mr. Salwan submits that since there is no category ''C'' plot presently available in the WEA of Karol Bagh, the petitioner has been allotted a plot under the said area; albeit at the market rate.

On the other hand, Mr. Sehgal, who appears for the petitioner, in consonance with the stand taken in the petition, submits that this issue cannot be re-examined in view of the statement made by Mr. Gaur before the Division Bench on 19.09.2001 in WP (C) 532/1987. Mr. Sehgal says that the respondents had taken a stand that the petitioner would be allotted a land in category ''C'' in the said area. It is Mr. Sehgal''s contention that it was known to the respondents that the petitioner had been staying in WEA of Karol Bagh since 1948, and therefore, "the said area" in the context of the averments made in the writ petition and the stand taken before the Division Bench would only mean the Karol Bagh area. It is also Mr. Sehgal''s contention that there was a category ''C'' plots available even in the WEA of Karol Bagh. In support of this stand, Mr. Sehgal also relies upon the order of 31.01.2012, passed by this court, wherein this very stand of the respondent was examined and rejected.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the following emerges in this case :-

(i). There does not seem to be a dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner has been staying in the WEA area of Karol Bagh for several decades. The petitioners claims that she has been staying from 1948;

(ii). The petitioner fell in Category ''C''. This determination was done in another proceedings through the aegis of the Retired Judge of this court Hon''ble Mr. Justice K. Ramamurthy;

(iii). The respondents had allotted to the petitioner, a plot, in Category ''C''; albeit in Narela;

(iv). The petitioners had approached this court by way of a second writ petition i.e., WP (C) 8938/2009, which was disposed of, with certain observations, to which I had made a reference above, on 09.03.2010.

(v). The respondents in conformity with the directions issued by this court on 09.03.2010, finally allotted a land to the petitioner in the WEA of the Karol Bagh, which is, plot no. 63G, Block 8A, WEA Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Admittedly, this plot admeasures 25 sq. yds. This plot, even according to the respondents falls in Category ''B'', and admittedly, Category ''B'' plots have to be allotted at "pre-determined rates" and not market rate.

The respondents on being queried, were not able to clearly inform me as to whether Category ''C'' plots exist in western extension area of Karol Bagh, as asserted by the petitioner. The fact, however, remains that they do not exist as of today. The petitioner has been given a category ''B'' plot.

Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, including a fact that this court had on 31.01.2012 construed the import of the order dated 19.09.2001 passed in WP (C) 532/1987, the only conclusion that can be drawn is: that was the stand of the respondents on 19.09.2001, to allot a plot to the petitioner, in the area, in which, she was residing, i.e., WEA of Karol Bagh.

There was, therefore, never ever a stand taken by the respondents that she would be allotted a Category ''C'' plot in Narela. Having regard to the fact that she is now been allotted a plot in the WEA of the Karol Bagh; albeit in Category ''B'' which requires the respondent only to charge the allottees at the pre-determined rates, I do not see any reason why the petitioner should be called upon to pay at the market rate.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that the respondents from hereon, should process the petitioner''s request further and issue a revised demand-cum-allotment letter at the pre-determined rates. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two weeks from today. The possession would be given to the petitioner not later than 10.10.2012, failing which Mr. S.K. Jha, Director (Lands), DDA shall remain present in court.

With the aforesaid observations, the contempt petition is disposed of.

List for directions on 12.10.2012. Dasti.