Delhi High Court Holds DDA And Its Officials Guilty Of Contempt In Land Allotment Case
Sanjana Dadmi
19 July 2024 9:44 AM GMT
The Delhi High Court has held the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and its officials, the Vice Chairman and the Deputy Director (Land Disposal), to be in contempt of the court's orders in a case relating to land allotment.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma passed the contempt order against the DDA, which filed the present application for recall of the High Court's order dated 11.07.2022 directing the body to execute a conveyance deed in favour of one Bimla Sachdev (petitioner).
The petitioner was allotted a plot in Vikas Puri, New Delhi by the DDA, which was earlier allotted to her deceased husband. But the plot was involved in litigation, so the petitioner had requested DDA to allot a new plot.
On DDA's failure to allot a new plot, the petitioner approached the High Court for allotment of an unencumbered plot to her in Rohini, New Delhi. The High Court on 04.02.2019 had directed the DDA to allot an unencumbered plot to petitioner in Rohini, New Delhi. However, as the DDA did follow the court's order, the petitioner filed contempt petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Court had issued notice to the DDA regarding the contempt petition, in response to which the DDA stated that the difference in the market price of the first allotted price and the reallotted plot was Rs.1,09,50,680 and not Rs.72 Lacs as asserted by the petitioner. As the petitioner agreed to pay the new amount, the Court passed a consent order on 11.07.2022 and directed the DDA to execute a conveyance deed once the petitioner paid the amount. However, the DDA filed the present application for recall this order.
DDA argued that in a meeting attended by its officials, it was unanimously decided that the originally plot in Vikas Puri and the petitioner's desired plot in Rohini were dissimilar. They contended that the statement made in court on 11.07.2022 about the value difference was based on a theoretical estimate and ignorned factual aspects. This, they claimed, violates DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981, and poses financial risks to DDA.
The High Court noted that this contention by the DDA “…is not palatable and cannot be sustained in law.”
It referred to Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the rule of estoppel. It provides that if a party through an act or omission, makes a person believe a thing to be true and the person acts on such belief, then such party cannot later deny or alter that truth in a legal dispute.
The Court further relied on the Supreme Court case of Pratima Chowdhury vs. Kalpana Mukherjee (AIR 2014 SC 1304), where it was observed that the rule of estoppel is based on a doctrine of fairness and that it prevents the first party from altering its initial position, to the disadvantage of the second party in a suit or proceedings.
In the present case, the Court stated that once the DDA had agreed to recognise the petitioner's legal right to a new plot in Rohini and even handed over possession, they could not have withdrawn such right. It held that DDA's withdrawal of concession to the petitioner amounted to deliberate and wilful disobedience of its order dated 17.10.2022. It thus directed the DDA to execute a conveyance deed in favour of the petitioner.
“…once the respondent has been acquiescing in accepting the legal rights of the petitioner in having a new plot at Rohini and delivered the possession thereof, the decision taken in the meeting by the Vice Chairman, DDA on 17.10.2022 thereby, withdrawing the concession, cannot be accepted. The decision amounts to deliberate and wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court. The respondent No.2/DDA acquiesced directly with full knowledge of the entire history of the litigation and as there was an express approbation, therefore, the possession cannot be reprobated.”
The Court therefore found the DDA and its officials to be guilty of contempt, to be dealt under Sections 117 (Power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction) and 128 (Punishment for contempt of court) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It issued show cause notice to the Vice Chairman, DDA and Deputy Director (Land Disposal), DDA as to why they should not be punished for contempt.
It further ordered personal appearance of the Vice Chairman and Deputy Director on 30.08.2024.
Case title: Bimla Sachdev vs. Subur & anr. (CONT.CAS(C) 942/2019 & CM APPL. 42191/2021, CM APPL. 14038/2022, CM APPL. 43561/2022)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 796
