9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1473X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to indicate conclusively that Madan Lal had been residing on the site prior to 1950. The suggestion that Madan Lal ought to be granted the benefit under Category-B does not establish any right to claim benefit under Category-A, as suggested by the Ld. Single Judge, and is simply a benevolent act of the DDA. In any event, DDA, in terms of the materials available before it, which are uncontroverted documents, has given the benefit of the Scheme to Madan Lal under Category B. The principle of preponderance of probabilities cannot be evoked in this case enabling the ancestors of Ram Dass to a plot under Category A. By applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities, the learned Single Judge has actually reversed the burden of proof on the DDA to establish that Madan Lal was not entitled to the benefit of Category A. It is evident that the questions before the Ld. Single Judge were hotly disputed questions of fact, best adjudged before a civil forum. Furthermore, the Respondents do not have a right to be given the benefit under category A, as the Scheme is a largesse of our welfare State. Hence, the Impugned Judgment ought not to conclusively decide the rights of the Respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of payment of damages assessed by Authority on the basis of rates levied for the first time in 1952. 5. Census Slip issued by the MCD in 1960. 6. Present Ration Card. 7. Electric/Water/Telephone bills, if any dated back to 1950. 8. Any other letter addressed to squatter at his place of occupation prior to 15.8.1950 by any Government Agency. 9. An affidavit duly attested by the 1st Class Magistrate to the effect that no plot/land has been allotted to him/them prior to this and he/they has/have not taken any benefit under the Gadgil Assurance Scheme. 10. Proper identity-proof duly attested by Gazetted Officer or 1st Class Magistrate. 6. It appears that both, Ram Dass and his son Madal Lal applied for the allocation of a plot under the Scheme. Neither a perusal of the facts nor documents placed on record conclusively indicate when Ram Dass had applied under the Scheme. Furthermore, nothing has been placed on record to indicate whether father and son i.e Ram Dass Madal Lal were living together or separately. 7. In 1968, Late Shri Madan Lal submitted a form to the DDA giving material particulars such as his ration card details, and his address. Pertinently, in this form, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... morothy to evaluate the claims of these Petitioners in one go. Neither Pushpawanti nor Madan Lal were before this Committee. 13. In 1999, Late Shri Madan Lal passed away. Pertinently, the death certificate noted that his address was E-2/129A, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. 14. In 2006, after the demise of Late Shri Madan Lal, Respondent No. 1 herein, filed a Civil Suit bearing No. 1202/2006 titled Pushpawanti v. DDA. This was the first round of litigation initiated by the Respondent No. 1 herein to claim a benefit underCategory A. However, this was subsequently withdrawn. 15. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 herein came to file WP(C) No. 9024/07 with the same relief, as that made in Civil Suit bearing No. 1202/2006. Vide Order dated 04.07.2012, the Ld. Single Judge remanded the matter back to the Director (Lands) of the Appellant herein directing the Director to decide the matter expeditiously. 16. At the first instance, Director (Lands) of the Appellant declined to place Respondent No. 1 in Category A of the said Scheme due to deficiencies in the documentary evidence adduced. The primary reasons were as follows: a) that the claim of Madan Lal was considered previously and placed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... card, the learned Single Judge observed that the said ration card was issued in the name of one Late Shri Madan Lal and the date of issuance is recorded as 20.07.1950. On the basis of this, the learned Single Judge observed that the observations made by the Director (Lands), DDA with regards to the illegibility of the ration card were inaccurate. b) Further, with regard to the purported unreliability of the ration cards, the learned Single Judge relied upon the form filled by Late Shri Madan Lal dated 15.11.1968 wherein at Serial No.7, the number of the ration card has been recorded as AJ-341450. The learned Single Judge observed that ration card numbers change after a period of time and as noted the original ration card was issued in the name of father of Late Shri Madan Lal, hence, the change is imminent. On the basis of this, the learned Single Judge did not find favour with the argument that the previous ration card could not be relied upon. c) With regards to the discrepancy in the hutment number which would go to prove that Pushpa Wanti had been living separately, the following was observed: first, the Ld. Single Judge stated that as per the affidavits of the DDA itself, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Director (Lands) affirmed the findings contained in the first insofar as it categorically states that the Respondent No. 1's husband did not have a separate claim under the Scheme. 26. On a previous occasion, the Appellant herein had also written to Late Shri Madan Lal stating that he did not have a claim under Category-A of the Scheme. Hence, it appears that the Appellant herein has, while deciding the claim of the Respondents, reached the same conclusion thrice. 27. It was in this backdrop that the Impugned Judgment was passed wherein, the Ld. Single Judge allowed the Petition, and decided factors such as the genuineness of the ration card, and discrepancy in the hutment on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities. 28. It is a fact that there exists a discrepancy in hutment number as Late Shri Madan Lal had stated that the hutment in lieu of which he was seeking allotment was T-5335/2. However, in the affidavits submitted to the Appellant, the number of the hutment was recorded as T-5335. Further, the Survey list generated by the Appellant also indicated someone else's name, and not the name of Late Shri Madan Lal for hutment No. T-5335. Whether Late Shri Madan Lal in fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 379, held as under: - "8. The principle as to when the High Court should exercise its special jurisdiction under Article 226 and when to refuse to do so on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy has been settled by a long line of cases. The remedy provided under Article 226 is not intended to supersede the modes of obtaining relief before a civil court or to deny defences legitimately open in such actions…The High Court, in the present case, therefore, ought not to have embarked upon a decision of the writ petition on merits, and should have refused to exercise its special jurisdiction on the ground of alternative remedy before the civil court." 32. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court,in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh &Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 334, has stated that in cases with hotly disputed questions of fact, the High Court may not interfere under Article 226, in case an equitable efficacious alternate remedy exists. From the cases canvassed above, it is evident that this Court ought not to interfere when the Petitioner can pursue an alternate remedy, such as a civil suit. In the instant case, considering the length and breadth of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, this discrepancy was determinative in establishing the factum of Madan Lal's independent occupation of the hutment and his separate claim under the Scheme. In fact, there is nothing on record to show whether 8A/T-5335 was actually sub-divided into two plots orwhether the sub-division of the plot was done prior to 1950; whether Madan Lal resided in a common unit or two different units so as to entitle him for a separate benefit of the Scheme. In order to claim the benefit of Category A plot, it was on Madan Lal to prove that he was residing in a separate unit prior to 15.08.1950. As stated earlier, this was to be established by documentary evidence, which in the instant case is heavily disputed. On the contrary, the documentary evidence lends credence to the case of the DDA. Illustratively, the death certificate of Madan Lal shows that his residence was E-2/129A, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi. Further, in the survey conducted by the Scheme Branch in the year 1981 and 1998, the name of ShriMadan Lal was conspicuously missing. As per this list, one, Shri Nanak Chand was residing at this site. 37. In any event, DDA, in terms of the materials available before it, which are uncontroverte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
