JUDGMENT
K. Ramamoorthy, J.
(1) The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 20.10.1982 by Delhi Administration and the letter dated 25.11.1982 by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA) and for further quashing the notice dated 7.9.1982 issued by the Dda and for a mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of plot No. 55, Block G, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, or any plot in the same locality pursuant to the letter dated 7.3.1979 and dated 28.8.1980. The case of the petitioner briefly stated as follows:
(2) The land of the petitioner was acquired for development of Delhi. In 1961, a scheme was framed which is called “Large Scale Acquisition Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi, 1961”. That scheme provides for an allotment of land to persons from whom land is acquired. According to the petitioner the land of the family situated in Village Chirag was acquired by Delhi Administration in 1955,1961 and 1965. In November, 1963 a public notice was issued inviting the application’s from the persons who would be entitled to allotment under the scheme. On 1.3.1978 the petitioner applied to the Delhi Administration, Land and Building Department, that was not acknowledged. The Delhi Administration asked the petitioner to move an application in a prescribed proforma. On 13.11.1978, the petitioner applied in the prescribed proforma. It is stated in para 10 of the petition as follows : In this application the petitioner desired allotment of residential plot measuring 400 sq. yards. In this proforma there is a Column -11 in which the petitioner mentioned ‘No’ as the earlier application moved in 1967 was not acknowledged by the Department. It is submitted that until and unless application is acknowledged earlier application has no effect in the eyes of law.
(3) On 25.7.1979 the Delhi Administration recommended the allotment of plot of 250 sq. yds. by letter dated 23.10.1979 and the Dda wrote to the petitioner informing him that he was found eligible for allotment of alternative plot of a size of 125 sq. yds. The petitioner sent an affidavit stating that he has no other residence or plot in Delhi either in his name or in the name of his dependent. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 as earnest money. Thereafter by a letter dated 28.8.1980 the Dda informed the petitioner that plot No. 55, Block G, Malviya Nagar has been allotted to him on perpetual lease hold basis subject to payment of premium amounting to Rs. 9,615.10. According to the petitioner the balance amount payable after giving credit of Rs. 2,000.00 is Rs. 7,626.10.
(4) A few days later by a letter dated 25.2.1981 the petitioner was asked to file a copy of jamabandi for the year 1958-59 L.R-4 duly certified by the Tehsildar. On 26.3.1981 he replied to the letter dated 25.2.1981 to the Delhi Administration staling that the jamabandi for the year 1958-59 was not prepared for the village and the same prepared for the years 1964 and 1969. He accordingly sent a photocopy of the jamabandi duly certified by the Naib Tehsildar, Mehrauli for the years 1964 and 1969.
(5) On 9.2.1982, the Delhi Administration stated that the petitioner’s case for confirmation of recommendation for allotment of alternative plot was pending for want of jamabandi/J.R.E/Khatauni.THE petitionerreplied vide letter dated 9.2.1982 reiterated his stand in his letter dated 26.3.1981.
(6) By a letter dated 7.9.1982, the Dda gave a show cause notice to the petitioner and asked him as to why the allotment of alternative plot be not cancelled and the prosecution be launched against him petitioner for concealment of facts. According to the petitioner, the main thrust of the show cause notice was that in Column No. Ii of his application dated 13.11.1978, he had not given the correct information. The information in Column Ii was given with bona fide intention and there was no concealment of fact involved. By a letter dated 6.10.1992 the petitioner wanted two months’ time to submit reply to the show cause notice. By a letter dated 11.10.1982 the petitioner requested the authorities to supply one copy of the previous application and that application was never acknowledged by the authorities. By an application dated 19.10.1992, the petitioner requested for inspection of the earlier application, there was no response.
(7) The Delhi Administration by a letter dated 20.10.1982 withdrew its recommendation dated 23.7.1979. Consequent on the withdrawal of the recommendation, the Dda by letter dated 25.11.1982 cancelled the allotment. The petitioner made a representation on 22.8.1983. By a letter dated 27.10.1983 the petitioner was asked by the Dda to approach the Delhi Administration for fresh recommendation. The Delhi Administration did not give any reply and, therefore, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
(8) The petitioner states in the petition that his rights under Articles 300A and 14 of the Constitution of India have been violated by the respondents. According to him, once the petitioner was found eligible for the allotment and allotment was made of 125 sq. yds of land that could not have been withdrawn for any reason whatsoever.
(9) The Delhi Administration filed the counter stating that the petitioner applied in 1967 and he did not pay the amount and, therefore, the allotment was cancelled. It is stated that the petitioner had applied for allotment on 26.10.1967. On 30.10.1967 the Delhi Administration recommended his case for allotment of a plot. By letter dated 25.11.1967, the petitioner was asked by Dda to deposit a sum of Rs. 1400.00 which is 25% of the premium, if he was interested in the allotment. The petitioner did not deposit the amount hence the Dda by letter dated 30.4.1968 informed the Secretary, Land and Building, Delhi Administration that the petitioner had not deposited 25% of the premium and therefore, the allotment had been cancelled. He did not take any steps thereafter. After a lapse of Ii years as if nothing had happened in between, he applied again on 30.11.1978. On such application the respondents decided to allot a plot. Subsequently it came to the notice of the respondents that the petitioner had applied in the year 1969, which fact he had concealed while applying in 1978. The petitioner did not avail of the opportunity of obtaining the allotment of the plot offered to him because of which the subsequent was rightly withdrawn by the Delhi Administration by a letter dated 20.10.1982. It is stated by the first respondent, Delhi Administration, that the petitioner did not accept the offer made by the Dda on 30.10.1967, and therefore, he was not entitled to apply again for a plot for the second time. It is not necessary to relate the other averments made in the counter affidavit.
(10) The petitioner filed rejoinder to the counter filed by the Delhi Administration. He stated “in fact the petitioner applied in the year 1978 under the bona fide belief that his earlier application was not acknowledged”.
(11) On 3.10.1985 the second respondent Dda filed the counter. It is stated in the counter that the Dda received the recommendations from the Delhi Admn. by letter No. F.28(8) / 64-L&B dated 30.10.1967 for the allotment of alternative plot measuring 125 sq. yds. The second respondent Dda made an offer to the petitioner by letter dated 25.11.1967. The that was received by the petitioner on 30.11.1967 and no deposit was made by him inspite of having received the offer. By a letter dated 30.01.1968 the petitioner was reminded about the offer made by the DDA. That letter was received by the petitioner on 1.2.1968 and no payment was made. In these circumstances due to concealment of material fact the Dda had no other option but to cancel the offer made for the second time on the recommendation of the Delhi Administration by letter dated 30.10.1979. It is stated by the Dda that once the offer was made and that was not accepted, the petitioner was not entitled to make a second application. It is also stated in the counter that even in the letter dated 23.10.1979, it was specifically stated that the allotment could be cancelled at any stage and the plot together with the structure thereon removed without any compensation or refund of any amount if it is found that wrong particulars were furnished by the petitioner while the application for the alternative plot was made.
(12) After 11 years the petitioner on 16.3.1996 filed the rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by respondent No. 2 (DDA). It is stated by the petitioner in the rejoinder that the petitioner had no knowledge of the communication dated 30.10.1967 sent by the second respondent nor was any copy sent to him. He asserted: It is categorically denied that the petitioner received the communication dated 25.11.1967 from the respondent No. 2 offering him a plot measuring 125 sq. yds. in the East of Kailash, on 30.11.1967 or on any other date. As the petitioner never received the said communication, there was no question or occasion of his depositing the alleged demand of Rs. 1400.00 made therein. Had the petitioner received the alleged communication dated 25.11.1967, there was no question of the petitioner not accepting the same and not making payment of the demand as made therein. In fact, the subsequent conduct/actions of the petitioner substantiate this fact. It is also wrong and categorically denied that the petitioner received any reminder dated 3.1.1968 on 1.2.1968 or on any other date, in regard to the offer of allotment of plot in East of Kailash. He asserted that no offer was made to him on 25.11.1968.
(13) Mr. R.K. Saini, learned Counsel for the petitioner made his submissions in July, 1997 and the learned Counsel for the Dda Mr. Jayant Bhushan made his submissions. We wanted to peruse the records and Mr. Jayant Bhushan submitted the records and brought to our notice the receipt of acknowledgement from the petitioner with reference to the offer of plot made to him and the reminder sent to him. We directed learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Saini to get his client so that we can ascertain the fact whether he had acknowledged the receipt of the letters. The petitioner was to appear on 23.7.1997. He did not appear and thereafter the matter was adjourned to 13.8.1997. On 13.8.1997 also he did not appear and the matter was further adjourned to 20.8.1997. On 20.8.1997 again the matter was argued by learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the petitioner. We showed acknowledgement to the petitioner, who was present in Court and he admitted that he had received the letters and the signatures found in the two acknowledgements were his and he had signed the postal acknowledgements. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Sr. Counsel submitted that whatever had happened earlier the petitioner hails from very poor family, and he is an illiterate person did not know how to put forth his case and he might have completely forgotten about what happened earlier and assuming there was any deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner the respondents were bound in law to allot a plot to the petitioner because the land belonging to the family of the petitioner was acquired by the respondents and they are not put to any prejudice. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that assuming that there was any concealment that was not with reference to any material part of the case and on that score the petitioner cannot be penalised. The petitioner and his family are without any residence. They are suffering and therefore, the petitioner’s case should be considered on equitable grounds.
(14) Mr. Jayant Bhushan learned Counsel for the Dda contended that the petitioner knew while making the second application that if he had disclosed the fact of earlier allotment and cancellation he would not be entitled to apply for an allotment and, therefore, he deliberately concealed the earlier application. Even in the writ petition he would assert that he did not apply and he would maintain the same in the rejoinder and therefore, a person who has suppressed the material facts is not entitled to any indulgence.
(15) Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even as per para B in the counter affidavit filed by the Delhi Administration the object of Column 11 was to avoid double allotment and therefore when there had been no allotment earlier the petitioner cannot be deprived of an allotment when the land of the family had apparently been acquired. Para B reads as under: According to the policy of the Government, only one plot could be recommended to the eligible persons against his total land owned by him. No person could be allowed to apply for the allotment of alternative plots twice or thrice. With a view to avoid this discrepancy, it was prescribed in the form to indicate/intimate if the applicant had also applied earlier and if so, the reference of the department was to be written so as to enable the department to inter-link both the files of the applicant and also to avoid delicacy in allotment of the alternative plot.
(16) The argument of learned Senior Counsel that there had been no deliberate concealment by the petitioner, assuming there was any concealment and in that event having regard to the adverse circumstances in which the family of the petitioner is placed, the petitioner being an illiterate person his case could be considered on humanitarian ground, is disingenuous.
(17) The petitioner cannot be said to be a person who can be said to be not aware of what he is doing. When he was asked to give jamabandi for the years 1958-59 he could understand and actually wrote back to the Delhi Administration that jamabandi was done in the village only in 1964-65 and he had sent photocopy of the same and as such it must be presumed that he was aware of his earlier application. Having failed to take advantage of the offer made in 1967, the petitioner made an attempt in 1978. Apparently, he thought that the respondents would not keep the documents intact and he would not be confronted with the postal acknowledgement by which he had acknowledged the receipt of the letters from the 2nd respondent. He has not come forward with any excuse as to why he did not pay the amount which he was asked to pay earlier. On a perusal of the documents and the writ petition and rejoinder filed by the petitioner, we are convinced that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and he is not as innocent as he professes to be. We are of the view that the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment is perfectly in order and in accordance with law and we have no hesitation in upholding the same.
(18) The Full Bench in Rama Nand v. Union of India etc., has held that a person whose land is acquired and is paid due compensation cannot claim .absolute right for allotment of an alternative plot. He has only a right of consideration. In this case on due consideration of his application an offer was made to the petitioner. He did not accept the same. Premium asked for was not paid, the allotment stood cancelled. The respondents rightly withdrew the recommendation made for the second time when they noticed that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and made wrong a declaration. The petitioner does not deserve for any consideration. On 20.8.1997 an additional affidavit was filed in Court by the petitioner setting out a few facts about his family and financial conditions, apparently with a view to satisfy the Court when we expressed our view in the matter. We cannot entertain such a move by the petitioner. We reject the additional affidavit. We felt that severe action should be taken against the petitioner for gross maneuvering but having regard to the fact that Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Counsel made a passionate appeal that the petitioner being a illiterate person did not know what he was doing, we left it that. For all these reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.