IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.5249 OF 2002

Sh. Jai Bhagwan & Ors. … Appellants Vs. Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

O R D E R

Appellants 1, 2 and 3 were each the owner of one bigha land in Khasra No.58/15 and 59/18 of Samaipur village and their lands were acquired on 27.7.1984 for the  planned  development  of  Delhi.  According  to Appellants,  Government  of  India  formulated  a  Scheme dated 2.5.1961 under which persons whose lands were acquired  for  planned  development  of  Delhi,  were eligible  for  allotment  of  developed  plots.  The appellants  claim   to  have  made  applications  in October,  1986  for  allotment  of  plots  under  that scheme.   After   considering   the   facts  of  their cases,  the  first  respondent  by  letters  dated

1

13.10.1986,  17.10.1986  and  16.10.1986  requested  the second respondent – Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’ for short) to allot plots measuring 250 sq. yds, to the appellants in view of acquisition of their lands. The DDA, by communications dated 8.12.1988 allotted to the appellants, plots of the size 120 sq. mtr. in its Rohini Residential Scheme on the ground that plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. were not available.   

2. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants approached the Delhi High Court in 1989 praying for a direction to DDA to allot plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. and for a direction to modify the letter of allotment dated 8.12.1988 to that effect. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the said writ petitions by a common order dated 29.2.2000. He held that the appellant did not have any vested right to claim plots of the size of 250 sq. yds. and having regard to non- availability of plots of the size of 250 sq. yds., the allotment of plots measuring 120 sq. m. was not open to challenge. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court by a brief concurring order dated 25.7.2001.

2

3. The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave. The grievance of the appellants is that the DDA was adopting a discriminatory approach. It is submitted  that  while  plots  measuring  120  sqm.  were offered to the appellants, others similarly situated were offered plots of the size 144 sqm. and 162 sqm. It is also their grievance that some of the allottees who were earlier offered plots measuring 120 sqm. were subsequently  offered  larger  plots.  The  Appellants contend that having regard to the recommendation by first  respondent,  DDA  ought  to  allot  them  plots measuring 250 sq. yds.

4. Rule 6 of Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 (for short ‘the Rules’) provides for allotment of Nazul lands (that is land  placed  at  the  disposal  of  Delhi  Development Authority and developed by or under its control and supervision)  at  predetermined  rates.  The  Rule enumerates different categories of persons entitled to allotment. The first category of persons entitled to allotment under the said Rules are individuals whose lands have been acquired for planned development of Delhi  after  1.1.1961  and  which  forms  part  of  Nazul

3

land. The size of the plot to be so allotted was to be determined by the Administrator of the Union Territory of Delhi, after taking into consideration the area and value of the land acquired from the persons as also the location and value of the plot to be allotted. What is significant is that there is nothing in the Rules which makes it obligatory for DDA to allot plots of any particular size to any allottee, merely because there is a recommendation by the first Respondent. Nor have appellants shown any assurance or agreement by DDA to allot them plots of the size of 250 Sq.yds.  

5. The  DDA  has  explained  that  at  the  time  of allotments of plots to the appellants, there were a large  number  of  applicants  with  recommendations awaiting allotment of plots, and their number (about 1500) was larger than the number of plots available for allotment; that in 1988-89, the number of plots available  for  allotment  was  713  of  different  sizes including 162 sqm., 144 sqm. and 120 sqm. Therefore, DDA clubbed together 236 plots of 120 sqm. size, 50 plots of the size of 144 sqm and 5 plots of 162 sqm. size and allotted them through draws. It was submitted that there was no question of any ‘inter-se’ seniority

4

or preference among those who were allotted 162 sqm., 144  sqm.  and  120  sqm.  plots.  For  the  purpose  of drawing lots and allotment, all these available plots of three sizes were treated as equal. Thus, allotment of  plots  measuring  120  sqm.  to  appellants  and allotment of plots of the sizes of 162 and 144 sqm. to some others, was not discriminatory, but as a result of  drawing  of  lots.  DDA  has  also  explained  the subsequent  allotment  of  larger  size  plots.  It  is stated  that  when  plots  were  allotted  to  the appellants, what were available were plots of sizes of 120, 144 and 162 sq. m. But, subsequently, when other layouts were developed by DDA, larger plots were laid out  and  became  available  for  allotment.  Therefore, when draws were held in 1992 or 1995 for allotment, some larger plots of the size 200 sq.m and 207 sq.m were  allotted  to  those  who  did  not  get  allotment during the 1989 draw. It is rightly pointed out that merely because larger plots were allotted at the draws held in 1992 and 1995, appellants cannot claim that larger plots should be allotted to them. The allotment of plots depended on the availability of plots at the time of allotment and in the absence of any vested right,  as  rightly  held  by  the  High  Court,  the

5

appellants have to accept whatever that was available and allotted. As neither discrimination nor bias nor undue preference is made out and as there is no vested right for allotment of plots of a particular size, the appellants cannot have any grievance.          

6. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed. We, however, grant two months time to the appellants to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  DDA’s communication  dated  8.12.1988,  if  they  have  not already complied with the same. DDA shall allot and deliver the plots in terms of the allotment letters dated 8.12.1988 within two months thereafter.

…………….…………………………………….J. (R V Raveendran)

New Delhi; ………………………………….……………..J. September 23, 2008. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

6