Sushil Mohan Saini vs Delhi Development Authority and Others

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—This writ petition is directed against the letters dated 03.01.1989 and 10.04.1989 which have been issued by the DDA (Respondent No. 1). By virtue of the letter dated 03.01.1989, the respondent No. 1 decided to:

1) Cancel the allotment of plot Nos. 101 and 144 made in the names of Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta (Respondent No. 4) and Mr Sushil Mohan Saini (Petitioner) respectively;

2) Allot plot No. 144 in favour of Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta (Respondent No. 4).

By virtue of the said letter dated 03.01.1989, the DDA (Respondent No. 1) also directed the Saini Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. (Respondent No. 5), to submit the sub-lease deed papers in respect of plot No. 144 in the name of Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta duly stamped for necessary execution. It was further indicated in the said letter that Mr Sushil Mohan Saini (the petitioner herein) may, however, be asked to exercise his option for allotment of plot No. 101 and forward his option in original to the respondent No. 1 for necessary action.

This was followed by the other impugned letter dated 10.04.1989 whereby the respondent No. 1 once again requested the society to submit the sub-lease deed papers and get it executed by 20.04.1989.

The petitioner is aggrieved because the petitioner had earlier been allotted the said plot No. 144 in the said Saini Co-operative House Building Society. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a letter dated 03.08.1982 issued by the respondent No. 1 to the Saini Co-operative House Building Society with regard to the confirmation of draw of lots held on 12.07.1982. As per the said letter, the draw of lots of 15 members of the society was held on 12.07.1982 in the office of the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 conveyed its approval of the draw as per the result-sheet which was enclosed with the letter. It was also directed that the society should get the sub-lease deeds executed within a period of three months from the date of issuance of the said letter, i.e., the letter dated 03.08.1982. The result- sheet which was annexed alongwith the said letter reads as under:

Result of draw of Saini Co-operative House Building Society held on 12/7/82 in the Office of Dy. Director (CS) DDA.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. No. NAME OF ALLOTTEE PLOT No. AREA IN REMARKS ALLOTTED SQ. YDS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Dr. Chander Mohan S/o Sh. Shanti Sarup 190 355.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Sh. Ram Narain Saini S/o Sh. Hukam Chand Saini 177 267.50 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Sh. Sushil Mohan Saini S/o Sh. Shanti Sarup Saini 144 225.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Sh. Banwari Lal Saini S/o Sh. Hari Chand 157 224.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Sh. Karam Singh S/o Sh. Narain Singh 134 228.87 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Sh. Jai Chand Saini S/o Sh. Jhuthar Mal 137 228.87 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Sh. Sansar Singh S/o Sh. Ghoni Singh 133 228.87 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Smt. Chander Kanta Saini W/o Sh. Om Prakash Saini 68 179.7 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Smt. Krishna Saini W/o Sh. Ram Singh Saini 80 183.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Sh. J.K. Bansal S/o Sh. Dewan Chand 143 138.88 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. Sh. Suraj Prakash Saini S/o Sh. Bhagwan Sahai Saini 99 134.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. Sh. Sohan Lal Saini S/o Sh. Devi Sahai 46 134.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. Sh. Arvind Kumar Jain S/o Sh. D.C. Jain 38 134.8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. Sh. Sewa Ram Saini S/o Sh. Daulat Singh Saini 94 134.5 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. Sh. Krishan Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh Saini 39 134.8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sd/- 12/7/82. Dy. Director(CS) Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.

From the above extract of the result-sheet, it is apparent that the petitioner''s name appears at S. No. 3 and he had been allotted plot No. 144 measuring 225.7 sq. yds. The learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the entire amount has been paid in respect of the said plot No. 144 and he drew our attention to Annexure G-II, which is a copy of a "No Dues Certificate" issued on 27.04.1989 by the society. The said certificate indicates that the petitioner is a bona fide member of the Saini Co-operative House Building Society and is an allottee of plot No. 144 in the layout plan of Saini Enclave, Delhi-110092. It is also indicated that he had paid all his dues in time whenever asked for by the society and at the time of allotment of the plot. It is also certified that the account of Dr Sushil Mohan Saini is clear and that nothing was due against him on the date on which the certificate was issued.

The controversy that has arisen in the present petition is because this allotment, which was made in favour of the petitioner, had subsequently been cancelled by the respondent No. 1 by virtue of the said impugned letter dated 03.01.1989. The cancellation was apparently at the instance of an application made by the respondent No. 4 pursuant to implementation of the award dated 16.02.1983. The chronology of events insofar as the respondent No. 4''s claim was concerned is that one Mr Shivram Gupta was an original member of the said society. The said Mr Shivram Gupta was the respondent No. 4''s grandfather. He had been registered as a member for a plot size of 250 sq. yds. Mr Shivram Gupta died and his heirs did not make the payment as per the schedule. However, according to the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4, the default was on account of the fact that no notice had been issued to them. Be that as it may, the society reduced the plot allotment to 150 sq. yds. from the 250 sq. yds. category insofar as the claim of the respondent No. 4 was concerned. Since there was a dispute with regard to this reduction in the category of allotment from 250 sq. yds. to 150 sq. yds., the matter was referred to arbitration u/s 60 of the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972. The reference was made on 24.10.1981. The arbitrator, after considering the contentions of both the respondent No. 4, on the one hand, and respondent No. 2, on the other, made and published his award on 16.02.1983. The operative portion of the award reads as under:

The defendant-society aforementioned is directed to transfer to the plaintiff aforementioned by way of sub- lease a plot measuring not less than 250 Sq. Yards in the residential colony known as "Saini Enclave" developed by it, if necessary, by making adjustment in the list approved by the DDA vide its letter No. F- 13(2)76/CS/DDA/Saini dated the 3rd Aug., 1982 and to execute the sub-lease in favour of the plaintiff within one month on payment of due cost and charges by the plaintiff on demand to be made by the defendant society.

A plain reading of the said award makes it clear that the society was directed to transfer to the respondent No. 4 by way of a sub-lease "a plot measuring not less than 250 sq. yards in the residential colony known as "Saini Enclave", developed by it, if necessary, by making adjustment in the list approved by the DDA vide its letter dated 03.08.1982 wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at S. No. 3."

The society was aggrieved by this award and, therefore, preferred an appeal before the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal. The said appeal was numbered as Case No. 44/1982-83 and was dismissed by a speaking order dated 20.03.1985.

At this juncture, we may also make a note of two letters dated 11.04.1983 and 02.05.1983. These letters were written during the period when the award had been made by the arbitrator and the appeal was pending before the tribunal. The letter dated 11.04.1983 was issued by the Respondent No. 1 (DDA) to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, New Delhi. In that letter, a request was made to inform the Respondent No. 1 as to whether the Registrar upheld the award given by the arbitrator and, if so, to specify whether Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta is to be given preference in respect of those members, whose list was finalized by the DDA''s letter dated 03.08.1982 or whether Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta has to be treated at the bottom of the list and the already approved members are not to be disturbed. In response to this letter, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Delhi vide his letter dated 02.05.1983 indicated that the society is to re-allot the plots to the members of the society based on the accepted principles of seniority. The society should have kept a plot of an appropriate size vacant in the case of Mr Gupta in view of the arbitration case and directed that, if required, the society should withhold the allotment / execution of a sub- lease of a plot allotted to a junior most member of the society in order to comply with the directions given in the award in favour of Mr Yogesh Chander Gupta.

A few other facts need to be mentioned. The society, being aggrieved by the order passed by the tribunal, filed a writ petition before this Court being CW 1316/1985 which was also dismissed by an order dated 30.05.1985. Subsequent to the dismissal of this writ petition, on 15.06.1985, the petitioner, apprehending cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 144 in his favour, filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 397/1985 before the Sub-Judge, Delhi and prayed for an injunction against cancellation. In that suit, an interim order of status quo was passed. However, that suit was dismissed on 07.10.1988 on default on the part of the petitioner, who was the plaintiff therein. It is subsequent to that that the present writ petition has been filed in view of the subsequent letters dated 03.01.1989 and 10.04.1989 being issued which resulted in the cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 144 in favour of the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that, independent of the rights of the respondent No. 4, the petitioner had certain rights and those rights could not be taken away without affording him an opportunity of being heard and explaining his position. The cancellation letter dated 03.01.1989, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was issued without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner with regard to the proposed cancellation. Thus, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and yet his allotment, which earlier stood approved by the respondent No. 1 by virtue of the letter dated 03.08.1982, was cancelled. This, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and on this ground alone the letters dated 03.01.1989 and 10.04.1989 ought to be set aside.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the respondent No. 4 had throughout contested the initial order passed, whereby the plot size allotted to Respondent No. 4 was reduced from 250 sq. yds to 150 sq. yds. and, as a result, that the dispute was referred to arbitration. The award clearly indicated that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to a plot of 250 sq. yds. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the appeal against the award was dismissed by the tribunal and so also the writ petition challenging the order passed by the tribunal. It was, therefore, contended that the respondent No. 4 was clearly entitled to plot No. 144 and the allotment made by virtue of the impugned letters ought not to be disturbed. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioner had allowed his suit to be dismissed, his writ petition is also not maintainable.

After having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and having examined the record, we are of the view that the cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 144 in favour of the petitioner was done without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner had not only been allotted the said plot, but had also obtained the approval of the DDA by virtue of the letter dated 03.08.1982. The petitioner had also paid the entire amount as indicated by the "No Dues Certificate" referred to above. The learned Counsel appearing for the DDA was also unable to point out as to whether any hearing at all was given to the petitioner prior to the cancellation. In view of these circumstances, we set aside the letters dated 03.01.1989 and 10.04.1989 and direct the respondent No. 1 to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 4 and, after giving such an opportunity, to take a decision in the matter by a speaking order. Since the matter has been going on for quite some time, we direct the respondent No. 1 to take a decision within three months. The respondent No. 1 shall issue appropriate notices giving the dates of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 and any other affected parties. The notices to the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 may be sent through their respective counsel. This writ petition stands disposed of in view of the directions given above. In case there is any difficulty, the parties are at liberty to approach this Court.