LexM/S. SHORI LAL AND SONS AND ANR versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MIS. SHORI LAL AND SONS AND ANR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR DECEMBER 1, 1994 [K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] Delhi Development Authority-Allotment of land in lieu of Government land occupied-DDA scheme to allot alternate plots-Partnership firm and A B its partners having two different plots df land-Suppressing allotment of one plot equivalent to the two plots surrendered, partner obtaining second plot-Allotment of second plot which was' in excess of entitlement cancelled C by DDA and upheld by High Court-H~ld : Land in excess of entitlement obtained by playing fraud on DDA · and hence rightly cancelled- Connivance of DDA officers not ruled out-DDA to submit Enquiry Report within three months on the remedial action taken-Contempt action to be taken after perusal of the report. D In 1949 S occupied 177 sq. 'yard$ of Government land in Motia Khan, Delhi and set up a business in. iron and steel as a proprietary concern. In 1956, it became a partnership firm on the admission of his son as a partner. In 1962, his second son was also admitted to the partnership firm. · E The first son occupied a land on the rear side of the land already occupied, to the extent of 322 square yards and it was used as a godown. The partnership was carrying on its business in iron and steel in both the places under a single sales tax number and paying damages for occupation of both the lands in its name. F In 1975, in its endeavour to clear up government land at Motia Khan, Delhi, the Delhi, Development Authority (DDA) sought to allot to such persons and firms alternate plots for their business in the area covered by Naraina Warehousing Scheme. The appellant-firm and its partne~ made applications to DDA and obtained two plots of land of 200 sq.yards (plot X"' 70) and 450 ·sq. yards (plot No.Y-5) in lieu of the two plots ofland vacated by it G Later on, it was discovered that the allotment of lands to the appellants was far in excess of their entitlement and that appellant No. H 241 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 6 S.C.R A 2 by practising fraud on DDA obtained allotment of excessive . land. B c D E F G H Therefore, DDA proposed to withdraw the allotment of Plot No. X;.70 of 200 sq. yards and retake possession of the same. Accordingly, a communication was sent to the appellants by DDA. This was challenged by ihe appellants before the High Court by way of a Writ Petition and the same was dismissed. Hence this appeal by special leave. lnit~ally notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition confining to the question of cancellation of allotment. Later, another order was issued asking DDA to take appropriate action on an uniform basis against all such persons and to submit a report. Subsequently DDA was directed to constitute a Committee of Inquiry to look into the several allegations. Though the co..._m_ittee was constituted, it has not met after a certain date. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the order of DDA cancelling the allotment of plot No.X-70 deserved to be quashed since DDA has failed to carry out the directions of this Court. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : t. If there were to be more premises than one occupied by a partnership firm and its partners were to carry on iron and steel business in Motia Khan area, such persons were entitled to. obtain alternative plot/plots limited to the area specified on the basis of certain criteria, the same being the policy of the DDA to provide alternate plots for the persons who had to vacate the plots in Motia Khan area and get plots in the area covered by the Naraina Warehousing Scheme or other Schemes. But, has been done .by appellant-2 as disclosed from the original DDA records, in getting allotments of Plot No. X-70 measuring 200 sq.yds. and Plot No.Y-5 measuring .450 sq.yds, in Naraina Warehousing Scheme is nothing short of fraud played by ·him on the DDA, even though connivance of officers of DDA in. the matter cannot be ruled out. [248 C, DJ 2. An application was made by appellant-2 to get allotment of a plot of land for the appellants in lieu of both Premises No. 117 and No. 115 in Motia Khan because of handing over. possession of them to the DDA. The Statement made therein in the handwriting of appellant-2 himself that be bad not been allotted any plot by DDA in unequivocal language indicates that be had not been allotted any plot in lieu of both Premis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.