http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: M/S. SHORI LAL & SONS & ANT.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANT.

DATE OF JUDGMENT01/12/1994

BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) BENCH: VENKATACHALA N. (J) RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1084            1995 SCC  (3) 320  JT 1995 (1)    92        1994 SCALE  (5)88

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: VENKATACHALA, J.: 1.    This appeal by special ’leave is directed against  the Order dated 1.2.1985 by which Writ Petition, C.W.P. No. 1264 of  1984 of the appellants was dismissed by the  Delhi  High Court. 2.   Briefly stated, the facts are :-      Shori  Lal  and  his minor sons were  among  those  who migrated from Pakistan to India after its partition in 1947. In  the  year 1949 Shori Lal occupied 177  square  yards  of Government   land  out  of  Plot  No.  10242,  Motia   Khan, Paharganj, Delhi for setting up a business in iron and steel under  the name of his proprietary concern M/s. Shori Lal  & Sons. In the year 1956, Shori Lal’s proprietory concern M/s. Shori  Lal & Sons became partnership firm since Shori  Lal’s first son, Krishan Kumar (Appellant-2), who on attaining the age  of majority, was admitted as its partner.  Shori  Lal’s second son, Manmohan Lal was also admitted as the partner of M/s. Shori Lal & Sons in the year 1962 when he attained  the age  of majority. In the meantime 322 square yards  of  land out of Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan, lying on the rear side of the land of 177 square yards of land, where M/s. Shori Lal & Sons  carried  on  its  iron & steel  business  came  to  be occupied by it in the name of its partner Krishan Kumar  for its  godown. However, M/s. Shori Lal & Sons carried  on  its iron & steel business in the said two places under a  single Sales  Tax number and  by paying damages for  occupation  of both the lands in its name. Delhi Development Authority 94 (DDA) for purposes of assessing damages recoverable for  322 square yards of land in Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan,  treated that land as Premises No. 117 and opened a file therefor  as No.D/JH/KM-117.   Further  DDA  for  purposes  of  assessing damages recoverable for 177 square yards of land in Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan, treated that land as Premises No. 115 and opened a file therefor as No. D/JH/KM-115.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

3.      However, in the year 1975, DDA in its  endeavour  to clear  up government land at Motia Khan, Delhi where iron  & steel  businesses  were  carried on by various  persons  and firms  occupying it unauthorisedly, sought to allot to  such persons  and firms alternate plots for their  businesses  in the  area  covered by Naraina Warehousing Scheme.  Sizes  of alternate  plots  which were to be allotted to  persons  and firms, ready to shift from their plots in government land at Motia  Khan, by vacating them, had to be done  according  to the following criteria:      --------------------------------------------------      Existing area under occupation Area to be allotted      --------------------------------------------------      Below   50 sq. yds.            91.86 sq. yds.       51 to 100 sq. yds.           125    sq. yds.      101 to 150 sq. yds.           172.22 sq. yds.      151 to 200 sq. yds.           200    sq. yds.      201 to 250 sq. yds.           250    sq. yds.      251 to 300 sq. yds.           300    sq. yds.      301 to 400 sq. yds.           400    sq. yds.      401        sq. yds.           450    sq. yds.      and above 4.     On  applications  made  to  DDA  for  obtaining  such allotment,  Plot  No.  X-70  of  200  sq.  yds.  in  Naraina Warehousing  Scheme  was allotted on 21.7.1975  in  lieu  of Premises  No. 115 measuring 177 sq. yds. in Motia  Khan  and Plot No. Y-5 of 450 sq. yds. in  Naraina Warehousing  Scheme was allotted on 25.7.1975 in lieu of both Premises’ No.  117 measuring 322 sq. yds of land in Motia Khan and Premises No. 115 measuring 177 sq. yds. of land in Motia Khan. 5.    But, on complaints received at a latter stage when  it was  discovered by DDA that Plots Nos. X-70 and Y-5  in  the Naraina  Warehousing Scheme allotted in lieu of  extents  of lands  in  Premises Nos. 117 and 115 in Motia Khan,  had  an extent  of land far. in excess of the extent of the land  to the  allotment of which appellants were entitled  under  the settled  criteria and such allotment of excessive  land  had been obtained by Appellant-2 by practicing fraud on it,  the DDA sought to withdraw the allotment of Plot No. X-70 of 200 sq. yds. in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme made in favour of the  appellants and retake possession of the same  from  the appellants.   When  the  DDA sent  the  communication  dated 5.5.1984  to  the appellants about the  withdrawal  of  such allotment  and the retaking of possession of Plot No.  X-70, the    appellants   challenged   the   validity   of    that communication,  by filing writ petition, C.W.P. No. 1264  of 1984 in Delhi High Court.  But the High Court dismissed that Writ Petition by its order 95 dated  1.2.1985.  It is the  question of  sustainability  of that order of the High Court which arises for  consideration in  the  present  appeal  by  special  leave  filed  by  the appellants adverted to at the outset. 6.     Since the arguments advanced before us in the present appeal  were  rounded on certain orders made by  this  Court earlier,  reference  to them has  become  necessary.   First order  made by this Court on 17.9.1985 relates to  issue  of Notice  on  S.L.P.  confining it for  consideration  of  the question  of  cancellation of allotment of  Plot  No.  X-70. Another   order  made  by  this  Court.on  the   S.L.P.   on 18.12.1985 reads:               "The  matter  is adjourned for  one  month  to               enable  Delhi  Development Authority  to  take               appropriate action on a uniform basis  against               all  the persons mentioned in paragraph 24  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             the Special Leave Petition and the  additional               affidavit dated 6.9.85. The Delhi  Development               Authority cannot discriminate between  persons               belonging  to  the  same  class  and   equally               situated.   The report shall be  submitted  by               DDA within a month in this respect. The matter               shall be listed on 27th January, 1986." 7.     By  subsequent  order  dated 17.2.1986 made  by  this Court  on  the  S.L.P.,  Special  Leave  is  granted  and  a direction is given thus:               "We direct the Delhi Development Authority  to               constitute a Committee of Inquiry to look into               the   several   allegations   made   by    the               petitioners  as  regards  the   irregularities               committed in the matter of allotment of  plots               in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme, Phase 1." 8.    The argument advanced on behalf of the  appellants  by their  learned Senior Counsel, Shri Soli Sorabjee  was  that this  appeal of the appellants was required to  be  allowed, the  order of the High Court under appeal set aside and  the order  of the DDA cancelling the allotment of Plot No.  X-70 made  in  favour of appellant-l quashed since  the  DDA  had failed  to carry out the directions of this Court  contained in the Order dated 18.12.1985 and the Order dated  12.7.1986 as  regards constitution of Enquiry Committee to  look  into irregularities in allotment of plots and submit a report  to this Court in the matter even if it had a justifiable ground to cancel the order of allotment of Plot No. X’70 made by it in favour of appellant-l. 9.    From the order made by this Court on 18.12.1985 at the SLP stage, which we have excerpted already, DDA was directed specifically  to examine the cases of double  allotments  of plots  mentioned  in  Paragraph  24  of  the  Special  Leave Petition, and submit a report thereon to this Court. But, as seen  from  the original files of the DDA, a  Committee  has been,  no  doubt constituted by it to examine the  cases  of double  allotment of plots mentioned in Paragraph 24 of  the Special Leave Petition requiring it to make a report in  the matter  for placing the same before this Court.  Then,  when another  order  dated  17.2.1986  of  this  Court,   already adverted  to by us, has come to be passed  granting  Special Leave  in  the SLP and directing the DDA to  constitute  ’an Enquiry  Committee to look into the  serious  irregularities alleged to have been committed in the matter of allotment of plots  by  the DDA in Naraina Warehousing  Scheme,  Phase-l, matter  of enquiry does not appear to have been  pursued  by the  DDA.   As seen from the files of the  DDA  the  Enquiry Committee said to have 96 been  constituted to look into the irregularities  committed in  the matter of allotment of plots in Naraina  Warehousing Scheme,  does not appear to have even met  after  23.1.1990. The  question  is, whether this inaction of the  DDA  should become the ground for us to uphold the allotment of plots of land  made  in  favour of the appellants,  even  though  the second  allotment of plot had been obtained  by  appellant-2 far  in  excess  of the area to which  the  appellants  were entitled and the cancellation of allotment of Plot No.  X-70 made  in favour of appellant-l, was rightly  not  interfered with  by the High Court ? We do not think that the facts  of the  present case warrant upholding both the  allotments  of plots  made  in  favour of the appellants  by  the  DDA  and interfering with the cancellation by the DDA of allotment of Plot  No. X-70 made in favour of appellant-l by it  for  the reasons which we shall, presently set out.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

10.    Appellant-l is a partnership firm with partners,  the 2nd  appellant - Krishan Kumar, his brother -  Manmohan  Lal and  his father - Shori Lal, is an admitted fact. While  the business  of iron and steel was carried on by that  firm  in Premises  No.  115,  Premises No. 117 in  the  name  of  its partner,  Krishan  Kumar appears to have been  used  as  its godown. If there were to be more premises than one  occupied by a partnership firm and its partners to carry on iron  and steel  business  in  Motia  Khan  area,  such  persons  were entitled to obtain alternate plot/plots limited to the  area specified in the aforementioned criteria, the same being the policy  of  the  DDA to provide alternative  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, what has been done by  Krishan Kumar,  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. The contents of application  for allotment  made  by  Shori Lal, his  statement  relating  to Premises  No. 115, Motia Khan and the contents of  allotment order  allotting Plot No. X-70 in lieu of  Premises  No.115, Motia  Khan, as disclosed from the excerpt of  the  original application for allotment are these:               "I Shori Lal son of Shri Ram Singh for and  on               behalf of M/s. Shod Lal & Sons have today 21st               July,  1975 voluntarily handed  over  peaceful               possession of Premises No. D/TH/KM/115,  Motia               Khan,   to   DDA  and   shifted   to   Naraina               Warehousing  Scheme. I have not been  allotted               any plot by the DDA.               Area = 117 sq. yds.               Pre-1960                                         Sd/- in Urdu                                  Signature of the Applicant               He may be allotted Plot No. X-70               Measuring 200 square yards               Countersigned               Sd/               (Executive Officer)" 11.    Then,  when  it comes  to  Krishan  Kumar’s  original application   for  allotment,  his  statement  relating   to surrender of possession of Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115,  Motia Khan, and the allotment order made on the  basis of such statement allotting Plot No. Y-5 in lieu of Premises 97 No. 117 and Premises No. 115, Motia Khan. reads thus:               "I. Krishan Kumar s/o Shri Shori Lal.  Krishan               Kumar  and Manmohan Lal for and on  behalf  of               M/s.  Shori  Lal have today  27th  July.  1975               voluntarily handed over peaceful possession of               Premises  No. D/TH/KM/117 & 115 Motia Khan  to               the Delhi Development Authority and shifted to               Naraina  Warehousing Scheme. I have  not  been               allotted any plot by the DDA.               Area = 499               Pre - 1960                K.K.Moga                    Sd/-                Signature of the Applicant                Sd/-                Krishan Kumar               He may be allotted Plot No. Y-5

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

             Measuring 450 sq. yards.               Countersigned               Sd/               (Executive Officer)" 12.     As  becomes  clear from the contents  of  the  above application and the above allotment order. an application is made by Krishan Kumar to get allotment of a plot of land for M/s. Shori Lal, Krishan Kumar and Manmohan Lal. the partners of  M/s. Shori Lal & Sons in lieu of both Premises  No.  117 and  also Premises No. 115 in Motia Khan because of  handing over  possession  of them to the DDA.   The  statement  made therein in the handwriting of Krishan Kumar himself that  "I have  not  been  allotted any plot by  DDA"  in  unequivocal language indicates that he had not been allotted any plot in lieu  of both Premises No. 117 and Premises No.  115.  Motia Khan. is a falsehood. in that. for Premises No. 115.  handed over  by Shori Lal he had already obtained 200 sq.  yds.  of Plot No. X-70 of Naraina Warehousing Scheme. 13.    As has been pointed out by us earlier. there were two files,  one relating to Premises No. 117 which was  No.D/JH/ KM/117 covering an area of 322 sq. yds. and another relating to  Premises No. 115 was No.D/JH/KM/115 relating to 177  sq. yds. When the allotment of alternate plot was made in favour of M/s. Shori Lal. Krishan Kumar and Manmohan Lal. both  the files  being the areas of two premiseses are taken  together as  322  sq.  yds. + 177 sq.  yds.,  their  entitlement  for allotment is considered to be 499 sq. yds. of one plot. But. under the criteria of allotment of alternate plots to  which we  have referred to. the area of such plot could  not  have exceeded  450 sq. yds. That is how for both the  premiseses. i.e., Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115. appellant-l and its partners including appellant-2 are given Plot No. Y-5 of 450  sq.  yds.  in Naraina  Warehousing  Scheme.  This  also becomes clear from allotment letter issued to all the  three partners by the DDA. If Krishan Kumar had not stated in  his application that he was not given an alternate plot for both the premiseses. i.e., Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115. Motia Khan. New Delhi. and if he had not stated that he  had surrendered  both  of them. there would not  have  been  any scope  for  the  DDA to allot to him a huge  Plot  No.  Y-5. measuring  450 sq. yds. which was the only full  entitlement in  lieu of two premises.  It is these glaring  facts  which have led us to the conclusion that Krishan Kumar. appellant- 2.  has  played  fraud  on  the  DDA  in  making  a   wilful misrepresentation  about the handing over of  possession  of premiseses  as also the non-obtaining of alternate plots  in his application for 98 allotment.  When such fraud is the cause for  obtaining  the allotment  of Plot No. Y5 measuring 450 sq. yds. in  Naraina Warehousing  Scheme,  there could be  no  justification  for retention  by  the firm and its partners  earlier  allotment made of Plot No. X70 measuring 200 sq. yds., which would  be beyond  their entitlement.  Since this Court, while  issuing notice  on  S.L.P., has limited the  consideration  of  this appeal to the question of cancellation of allotment of  Plot No.  X-70  in Naraina Warehousing Scheme, we find  that  the cancellation  of that plot by the DDA was rightly upheld  by the  High  Court  by dismissing the  Writ  Petition  of  the appellants.  That order of the High Court does not call  for our interference. 14.   The next question is, whether DDA, which has failed to carry  out the specific orders of this Court in holding  the enquiry  in respect of double allotments and  irregularities alleged  to  have  been committed  in  making  allotment  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

alternate  plots,  and making a report  thereon,  should  be proceeded  against  by taking contempt  action  against  it. Public  bodies  like,  DDA, which  are  trustees  of  public properties,  and are to carry out public functions,  in  our view,  cannot escape their accountability for their  failure to  carry  out  the  orders of this  Court  made  in  public interest.   The  officers  of the DDA,  who  are  guilty  of inaction,  in  our  view, should  be  proceeded  against  in contempt  action. Adoption of such course, in our  view,  is necessary for the reason that if the officers of the DDA  or similar  public bodies are directed by this Court to  confer benefits  on  certain ineligible persons either  because  of such  officers’  inaction or because of conferment  by  such officers  of similar benefits on others who were  ineligible for them, the same could result not only in public loss  but also  in providing unwarranted protection to  officers  from their  liability  for punitive action on account  of  wrongs committed  by  them. However, in the facts  of  the  present case,  DDA  and its concerned officers, we feel,  should  be given a further opportunity to carry out the orders of  this Court in the matter of constituting an Enquiry Committee and enquiring  into the irregularities or illegalities  adverted to in the orders and making a report therefor, before making them liable for inaction, if any. We, therefore, propose  to grant  as  a last chance to DDA and its  concerned  officers three  months’ time to comply with the orders of this  Court made  on 18.12.1985 and on 17.2.1986, and make a  report  of remedial  action taken in the matter, before  proceeding  to take  contempt action against them for  non-compliance  with the orders of this Court.  The Registry of this Court  shall put up this case for orders in the matter immediately on the expiry of three months from today. 15.    Subject to the above directions given to DDA and  the Registry  of this Court, we dismiss this Civil  Appeal,  but without  costs.  C.M.P.  No. 38020 of  1980  of  petitioners therein for impleadment as supplemental respondents in  this Civil Appeal is rejected as not surviving for consideration. However,  a  copy  of this order be sent  forthwith  by  the Registry  of this Court to the Chairman,  Delhi  Development Authority, Vikas Bhawan, Indraprasta Estate, New Delhi, with a  view to enable the D.D.A. to comply with  the  directions given . to it therein. 99