Supreme Court of India
M/S. SHORI LAL AND SONS AND ANRversusDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 569
- Decided
- 1 December 1994
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The Court held that the cancellation of Plot No. X‑70 was justified because the allotment was obtained by fraud, and while the DDA’s non‑compliance with earlier orders warranted a warning, contempt action would be considered only after a remedial report is filed.
Summary
The partnership Mis. Shori Lal and Sons occupied two government plots in Motia Khan and, under the Delhi Development Authority's (DDA) scheme, applied for alternate plots in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme. The DDA allotted them Plot X‑70 (200 sq yds) for one plot and Plot Y‑5 (450 sq yds) for both plots, exceeding the entitlement under the scheme's criteria. It was later discovered that the second partner, Krishan Kumar, had fraudulently claimed he had not received any alternate plot, thereby obtaining the larger Plot Y‑5 and retaining Plot X‑70. The DDA cancelled Plot X‑70; the High Court upheld the cancellation, and the appellants challenged this in a Special Leave Petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the cancellation as justified due to the fraud, held that the partners were not entitled to both plots, and while noting DDA's failure to comply with earlier court directions, gave it three months to submit a remedial report before contemplating contempt proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the cancellation of the allotment of Plot No. X‑70 by the DDA is legally valid in view of the alleged fraud by the appellants.
- Whether the partners of Mis. Shori Lal and Sons were entitled to two separate alternate plots under the DDA's allocation criteria.
- Whether the DDA's failure to constitute and report on the enquiry committee constitutes contempt of court.
- Whether the fraudulent misrepresentation by appellant‑2 vitiates the entitlement to the allotted plots.
Subjects
Delhi Development Authorityland allotmentfraudpublic authoritycontempt of courtpartnershipgovernment landspecial leave petitionalternate plot scheme
Judgment
MIS. SHORI LAL AND SONS AND ANR A
v.
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR
DECEMBER 1, 1994
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B
Delhi Development Authority-Allotment of land in lieu of Government
land occupied-DDA scheme to allot alternate plots-Partnership firm and
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 ofentitlement 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 ofthe 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.
G
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
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.
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.
B
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
c 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.
D
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
E 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
F 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
G 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
Premises No. 117 and Premises No. 115, Motia Khan, is a falsehood, in
H
SHORI LAL SONS v. D.D.A. 243
that, for Premises No. 115 handed over by appellant-I, he had already A
obtained 200 sq.yds of Plot No.X-70 ofNaraina Warehousing Scheme.
[249 H, 250 A, BJ
3~ When the allotment of alternate plot was made in favour of the
appellants, both the areas of two premises were taken together as 322
sq.yds. + I 77 sq.yds., and their entitlement for allotment was B
considered to be 499 sq.yds. of one plot. But, under the criteria of
allotment of alternate plots, the atea of such plot could not have
exceeded 450 sq.yds. That is how for both the premises, i.e. Premises
No. 117 and Premises No. 115, appellant-I and its partners including
appellant-2 were given Plot .No.Y-5 of 450 sq.yds. in Naraina
Warehousing Scheme. This also becomes clear from the allotment letter C
issued to all the three partners by the DDA. If appellant-2 had not
stated in his application that he was not given an alternate plot for both
the premises, 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 the two premises. It is these glaring facts which D
have led to the conclusion that apptllant-2 has played fraud on the
DDA in making a wilful misrepresentation about the· handing over of
. possession of premises as also the non-obtaining of alternate plots, in
bis application for allotment. When such fraud is the cause of obtaining
the allotment of Plot No.Y-5 measuring 450 sq yds. in Naraina
Warehousing Scheme, there could be no justification for retention by E
the firm and ·its partners the earlier 'allotment made of Plot No.Y-70
measuring 200 sq yds., which would be beyond their entitlement. Hence
the cancellation of that plot by the DDA was rightly upheld by the High
Court by dismissing the Writ Petition of the appellants.
[250 D to H, 25I A]
F
4. J>ublic bodies like DDA, which are trustees of public properties,
and are to carry out public functions cannot escape their accountability
for their failure to carry out the order of this Court made in public
·· interest. The officers of the DDA, who are guilty of inaction should be
proceeded against in contempt action. Adoption of such course is
necessary for the reason that .if the officers of the DDA or similar G
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 H
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A the facts of the present case, this Court feels that DDA and its
concerned officers, 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 therefore, before making them
liable for inaction, if any. This Court proposes to grant as a last chance
B 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. [251 C to F]
C Civil App~al No 632 of 1986.
[From the Judgment and Order dated 1-2-85 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W.P. No. 1264of1984] with; CMP No. 38020of1986.
Soli J. Sorabjee, and Ranjit Kumar for the appellants.
D R. K. Jain, Rajiv K. Garg and N. D. Garg for the Intervener:
V. B. Saharya forthe D. D. A.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E VENKATACHALA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed
against the Order dated 1-2-1985 by which Writ Petition, C. W. P. No.
1264of1984 of the appellants was dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
Briefly stated, the facts are : -
F 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. I 0242,
Motia Khan, Paharganj, Delhi for setting up a business in iron and steel
under the name of his proprietary concern Mis. Shori Lal and Sons. In the
year 1956, Shori Lal's proprietary concern Mis Shori Lal and Sons became
G partnership finn 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 Mis
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. I 0242, Motia Khan
lying on the rear side of the land of 177 square yards of land, where Mis.
H
SHORI LAL SONS v. D.D.A. [VENKATACHALA, J.] 245
Shori Lal and Sons carried on its iron and steel business came to be A
occupied by it in the name of its partner Krishan Kumar for its godown.
However, Mis Shori Lal and Sons carried on its iron and 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 (DDA) for purposes of assessing damages recoverable for 322
square yards of land in Plot No. 10242, Motia Khan, treated that land as B
Premise 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.
However, in the year 1975, DDA in its endeavour to clear up C
government land at Motia Khan, Delhi where iron and steel businesses were
varried 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 D
their plots in government land at Motia Khan, by vacating them, had to be
done according to the following crieteria :
Existing area under occupation Area to be allotted
Below 50 sq. yds. 91.86 sq. yds.
E
51 to 100 sq. yds. 125 sq. yds.
101to150 sq. yds. 172.22 sq. yds.
151to200 sq. yds. 200 sq. yds.
F
201 to 250 sq. yds. 250 sq. yds.
251 to 300 sq. yds. 300 sq. yds.
301 to 400 sq. yds. 400 sq. yds.
G
401 sq. yds. and above 450 sq. yds.
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 H
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A 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
MotiaKhan.
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
B 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
practising fraud on it, the ODA sought to withdraw the allotment of Plot
No. X- 70 of 200 sq. yds in the Naraina Warehousing Scheme made in
c 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. 1264of1984 in Delhi
D High Court. But the High Court dismissed that Writ Petition by its order
dated i-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.
Since the arguments advanced before us in the present appeal were
E . founded 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:
F "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 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
G
and equally situated. The report shall be submitted by DOA
· within. a month in this respect. The matter shall be listed on
27th.January, 1986."
By subsequent order dated 17-2-1986 made by this Court on the s~ L.
H P ., Special Leave is granted and direction is given thu.s :
SHORi LAL SONS v. D.D.A. (VENKATACHALA, J.) 247
"We direct the Delhi Development Authority to constitute a 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-I."
The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants by their learned B
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- I quashed since the DDA had failed to carry
out the directions of this Court contained in the Order dated iS-12-1985
and the Order dated 12-7-1986 as regards constitution of Enquiry C
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-I.
From the order mad~ by this Court on 18-12-1985 at the SLP stage,
which we have excerpted already, DDA was .directed specifically to D
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 bCen, no dq_ubt
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 ·E
when another order dated 17 .2. 1986 of this Court, already adverted to by
us, his 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-I, ·matter of
enquiry does not appear to have been pursued by the DDA. As seen from F
the files of the DDA the Enquiry Committee said to have 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 inactio1_1 of the DDA should
become the ground for us to uphold the allotment of plots of land inade in G
favour of the appellants, even though the se<;ond 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- I was rightly not interfered with by the High Court ?
We do not think that the facts of the preserit case warrant upholding both
the allotments of plots made in favour of tQe appellants by the DDA and H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A interfering with the cancellation by the DOA of allotment of Plot No. X-70
made in favour of appellant- I by it for the reasons which we shall,
presently set out.
Appellant- I is a partnership finn with partners, the 2nd appellant-
Krishan Kumar, his brother Manmohan Lal and his father Shori Lal, is an
B admitte~ fact, while the business of iron and steel was carried on by that
firm in Premises No. I I 5, Premises No. I I 7 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
c aforementioned criteria, the same being the policy of the DOA 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 DOA records, in getting allotments of Plot No. X-70
D 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 ODA,
even though connivance of officers of DOA 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
E Khan, as disclosed from the excerpt of the original application for allotment
are these:
"I Shori Lal s<'n of Shri Ram Singh for and on behalf of Mis
Shori Lal and Sons have today 21st July, I975 voluntarily
handed over peaceful possession of Premises No.DITHli<M!
F
115, Motia Khan, to ODA and shifted to Naraina
Warehousing Scheme. I have not been allotted any plot by
theDDA.
Area = 117 sq. yds
G
Pre-1960
Sd/ in Urdu
Signature of the Applicant
H
SHOR! LAL SONS v. D.D.A. [VENKATACHALA, J.] 249
He may be allotted Plot No. X- 70 Measuring 200 square yards A
Countersigned
Sd/
(Executive Officer)" B
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 No.
117 and Premises No. 115, Motia Khan, reads thus: C
"I, Krishan Kumar s/o Shri Shori Lal, Krishan Kumar and
Manmohan Lal for and on behalf of Mis. Shori Lal have
today 27th July, 1975 voluntarily handed over peaceful
possession of Premisei; No. D/TH/KM/117 and 115 Motia
Khan to the Delhi Development Authority and shifted to D
Naraina Warehousing Scheme. I have not been allotted any
plot by the DDA.
Area-499
Pre-1960
E
K. K.Moga
Signature of the Applicant
Sd/
Krishan Kumar F
He may be allotted Plot No. Y- 5
Measuring 450 sq. yards
Countersigned Qt
Sd/
(Executive Officer )"
As becomes clear from the contents of the above application and the
above allotment order, an application is made by Krishan Kumar to get H
250 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R
A allotment of a plot of land for Mis Shori Lal, Krishan Kumar and
Manmohan Lal, the partners of Mis Shori Lal and 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 DOA. The Statement made therein
in the handwriting of Krishan Ktimar himself that "I have not been allotted
any plot by ODA" in unequivocal language indicates that he had not been
B 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 ofNaraina
Warehousing Scheme.
As has been pointed out by us earlier, there were two files, one relating
c to Premises No. 117 which was No. DI JW KM/ 117 covering an area of
322 sq. yds. and another relating to Premises No. 115 was No. DI JW KM
115 relating to 177 sq. yds. When the allotment of alternate plot was made
in favour of Mis. Shori Lal, Krishan Kumar and Manmohan Lal, both the
files being the areas of two premises are taken together as 322 sq. yds. +
177 sq. yds., their entitlement for allotment is considered to be 499 sq. yds
D 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 premises, i.e., Premises No. 117 and Premises
No. 115, appellant-I 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
E ODA If Krishan Kumar had not stated in his application that he was not
given an alternate plot of both the premises, i.e. Premises No. 117 and
Premises No. 115, Motia Khan, New Delhi, and ifhe had not stated that he
had surrendered both of them, then there would not have been any scope
for the DOA 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
F glaring facts which have led us to the conclusion that Krishan Kumar,
appellant-2, has played fraud on the DOA in making a wilful
· misrepresentation about the handing over of possession of premises as also
the non-obtaining of alternate plots in his application for allotment. When
such fraud is the cause for obtaining the allotment of Plot No. Y-5
measuring 450 sq. yds in Naraina Warehousing Scheme, there could be no
G justification for retention by the firm and its partners earlier allotment made
of Plot No. X-70 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 DOA was rightly upheld by the High Co~
H
SHORI LAL SONS v. D.D.A. [VENKATACHALA, J.] 251
by dismissing the Writ Petition of tlte appellants. That order of the High A
Court does not call for our interference.
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 be~n committed in making
allotment of alternate plots, and making a report thereon, should be B
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 ~eir 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 C
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 plll)itive action on account of wrongs D
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 E
and its concerned officers three months' time to comply with the orders of
this Court made on 18-12-1985 and ori 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. F
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 G
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.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Delhi Development Authority"Sign in to search