The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3082 of 2020 1. Pawan Kumar Pandey, aged about 41 years. S/o Late Jagannath Pandey, 2. Ashok Prasad, aged about 41 years, S/o Jailal Mahto, 3. Pradeep Kumar, aged about 51 years, S/o Mohan Prasad Barnwal, 4. Lakhanlal Barnwal, aged about 58 years, S/o Jagdish Prasad Barnwal, 5. Rajendra Prasad Sao, aged about 68 years, S/o Late Lakhan Sao, Bably 6. Bablu Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Domilal Barnwal, 7. Krishna Deo Prasad, aged about 50 years, S/o Meghlal Ram, 8. Shubhankar Bose, aged about 49 years, S/o Late S.K. Bose, All R/o Narra, P.O.- Narra, P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro. Versus … … Petitioners 1. Damaodar Valley Corporation (D.V.C.) through its Chairman, having office at D.V.C. Tower, V.I.P. Road, P.O. & P.S.- Ultadanga, District- Kolkata (West Bengal). 2. Chief Engineer- D.V.C., having office at Chandrapura, P.O. & P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro. 3. Deputy General Manager- D.V.C., having office at Chandraputa Thermal Power Station (C.T.P.S.),. P.O. & P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro. 4. Additional Director (H.R) DVC, CTPS, having office at CT.P.S., P.O. & P.S.- Chandrapura, District- Bokaro. … … Respondents --- CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner For the Resp.-DVC --- : Mr. Kalyan Roy, Advocate : Ms. Sonali Bhattacharjee, Advocate : Mr. Srijit Choudhary, Advocate : Ms. Tanya Rai, Advocate : Mr. Aayush Ojha, Advocate --- 11/03.12.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "That this application is directed against order dated 27/08/2020 (Annexure-10) passed by respondent no. 4 and issued the impugned orders incompliance with order dated 28/01/2020 (Annexure-8) passed in W.P.C No. 1137/2019 by reasons of which the application for allotment of plots has been decided and it is stated that the implementations of allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners shall be implemented in phased manner defending upon the requirements of DVC management and petitioners were advised to wait for their turn when DVC makes such plan to construct shops depending upon the requirement or else petitioner may file application or return of security deposits and also for issuance of an appropriate writ/writs commanding upon the respondents to implement the scheme forthwith and to handover respective plots in favour of the petitioners for constructions of shops." Arguments on behalf of the Petitioners 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no. 1 was allotted a piece of land for construction of shop and the allotted number of the shop was B-30. Similarly, petitioner nos. 2 to 8 were also allotted piece of land of different sizes for construction of shop on the land situated in Nimia More, Market Complex and the allotted number of shops were C-40, C-27, B-19, C- 42, C-16, D-31 and B-11 respectively. He submits that the copies of the allotment letters have been annexed and marked as Annexure-1 series. 4.
Legal Reasoning
The learned counsel has submitted that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, an agreement was executed on 12.02.2004 between the petitioner no. 1 and respondent- Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) and such agreement has been annexed as Annexure- 2. So far as other petitioners are concerned, no such statement has been made in the writ petition. However, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners deposited Rs. 300/- towards electricity connection, Rs. 100/- towards cost of agreement paper and Rs. 125/- towards cost of MCB of 5 amperes. The petitioners also deposited adhesive stamp worth Rs. 20/- to the respondent no. 4 within the specified time and they were also directed to deposit the security deposit for the shops in question and the amount of deposit was fixed on the basis of sizes of plots. He submits that the documents in connection with security deposits made by the petitioners have been annexed as Annexrue-3 series to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the petitioners had completed all the formalities for the purpose of allotment of shops in terms of Annexure- 1 series, but the same were not allotted and under such circumstances, they filed a writ petition 2 before this court being W.P.(C) No. 1137 of 2019 (order annexed with the counter affidavit). He submits that the said writ petition was
Decision
disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 and such representation was to be disposed of after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed rejecting the representation of the petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the impugned orders suffer from error of record, inasmuch as, the necessary formalities were completed on the part of the petitioners and the remaining was left to be done by the respondents. He submits that in all the impugned orders it has been mentioned that the scheme was to be implemented in phased manner depending upon the requirements felt by DVC management and that the petitioners may wait for their turn when DVC makes such plans to construct shops depending upon the requirements of DVC management or else the petitioners may prefer an application for return of security deposit. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that so far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the agreement was entered into which has been placed on record and with regard to other petitioners, in spite of completing all the formalities, the agreement was not entered into and for that the remaining petitioners cannot be blamed. He submits that the impugned orders are perverse. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that once the respondents had taken a decision to allot area for shop to the petitioners and issued a letter to each of the petitioners as contained in Annexure-1 series, it is not open to them to say that they would do the needful as and when the shops are required to be constructed by DVC. The learned counsel has also submitted that the very issuance of letters (Annexure-1 series) reveals that a decision was already taken to construct the shops and allot it to the petitioners and thereafter, there is no subsequent decision placed on record to nullify the said decision. He submits that the respondents being a public sector undertaking, cannot act in an arbitrary manner and therefore, the impugned action 3 of the respondents cannot be justified in law being arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has thereafter submitted that some of the similarly situated persons have been allotted the shops but the petitioners have been left out by stating that the same will be allotted in a phased manner depending upon the requirement of DVC. 10. The learned counsel has also referred to the order dated 23.09.2024 wherein the respondents were directed to file specific affidavit giving details of allotment either of shop or of land as because the money was given in the year 2003-04. Vide order dated 23.09.2024, it was also observed that non-allotment of shop for such long period is nothing but misuse of power at the hand of the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that an affidavit has been filed by the respondents which is dated 25.10.2024 and it is just a repetition of the earlier counter affidavit. Arguments on behalf of the Respondents 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the prayer of the petitioners, has submitted that so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, he did not submit the affidavit in terms of the letter as contained in Annexure-1 series and so far as others are concerned, they did not comply with the terms of the said letter and consequently, no agreement was entered into. Learned counsel has submitted that it was the petitioners who were in breach of the terms and conditions of Annexure-1 and therefore, the impugned orders mentioning that the agreements could not be entered into due to non-compliance of the requirements by the petitioners does not call for any interference. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents has also referred to the affidavit dated 25.10.2024 and has stated that the petitioners had deposited their security money, but the scheme was to be implemented in a phased manner and the petitioners were allotted shops and size through drawing the lottery, but there was no approval made by the 4 corporation. It is also stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the under construction shops of the petitioners were demolished because of the illegal construction. It has also been mentioned that the scheme has been discontinued due to non-requirement felt by Damodar Valley Corporation, (CTPS Management) and the petitioners were informed about it in the year 2020. The learned counsel has also submitted that these aspects of the matter have been reflected in the impugned orders. Findings of this Court 13. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that at one point of time each of the petitioners was issued letter in connection with allotment of piece of land for construction of shop as mentioned by the writ petitioners and such statement is supported by Annexure-1 series. This Court finds that as per the allotment letters, certain conditions were to be satisfied by the petitioners and one such condition was clause 5 which is quoted as under: "5. An affidavit executed in court of law in support of a) non possession of any unauthorised DVC Qrs./Shop/Plot of land. b) no other member of your family has been considered for allotment of any land by DVC type of shop/plot of management at Chandrapura. The original copy alongwith two attested copy is to be submitted." Petitioner no.1 and 8 14. On the perusal of the affidavit placed on record with respect to petitioner no. 1, apparently the said affidavit is not in terms with the requirement of the aforesaid clause, inasmuch as, the said affidavit is completely silent in connection with Clause 5(b) of Annexure-1. In such circumstances, this court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner no.1 in this writ petition. So far as petitioner no. 8 is concerned, the required affidavit in terms of the allotment letter has not been placed on record and consequently, this court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner no. 8 also in this writ petition. 5 15. In view of the aforesaid facts with regard to petitioner nos. 1 and 8, this Court is of the view that the concerned authority has rightly observed that they did not comply with the requirement of the allotment letter as contained in annexure-1 series and therefore, the order impugned with respect to petitioner nos. 1 and 8 does not call for any interference. Petitioner no.2 to 7 16. So far as petitioner nos. 2 to 7 are concerned, their affidavits have been placed on record and these petitioners have claimed that they have completed all the required formalities at their end. However, from the perusal of the impugned orders with respect to petitioner nos. 2 to 7, the concerned authority has recorded that the petitioners were requested to submit all the related documents in support of their claim and they were required to enter into agreement with DVC management having the terms and conditions required for construction and running of shop. Some compliance from the allottee was also required for executing the agreement which included submission of affidavit by the petitioners for confirming demolition of their earlier unauthorizedly constructed shops and declaration of non-possession of unauthorized shop in DVC area and it has been recorded that due to non-compliance of these requirements by the petitioners, the agreement could not be executed. 17. However, in this writ petition the petitioners nos. 2 to 7 have placed certain documents which includes deposit of security money but the impugned orders do not reflect as to which particular clause of the allotment letter as contained in Annexure- 1 series were not satisfied by these petitioners. It is not clear from the records as to whether the documents which are filed along with the writ petition before this Court were placed on record before the authority who has passed the impugned orders with respect to each one of them. The documents annexed along with this writ petition also do not reflect any proof of receipt/receiving by the concerned authority. In such circumstances, the impugned orders with respect to petitioner nos. 2 to 7 require re-consideration by the concerned authority who is required 6 to verify the records of DVC and pass appropriate order after granting an opportunity of hearing to the concerned petitioners. The documents which the petitioners claim to have filed must be available in the records of DVC subject to verification. 18. So far as the argument of the respondents that the scheme has been discontinued is concerned, no decision of the authority has been placed on record and the decision to allot shops as contained in Annexure-1 series reveal that the allotment of plot of land was undertaken after due approval and acceptance by the Chief Engineer, CTPS, DVC on the recommendation of Land and Shop Allotment Committee, DVC, CTPS, Chandrapura. Once a decision has been taken, the same can be nullified only by a subsequent decision and no such decision has been placed on record by the respondent- DVC. Merely by stating on affidavit that subsequent decision has been taken is not sufficient particularly in a circumstance when the parties have acted pursuant to the decision taken by the respondents including the deposit of security money which has been retained by DVC for a long period. 19. Consequently, the matter is required to be considered afresh and if upon verification of records of DVC it is found that the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 had complied with the conditions as mentioned in the allotment letter, the respondents are directed to allot appropriate land/shop to the concerned petitioners and needful be done within a period of six months from the date of such decision. If ultimately it is found that the conditions required in terms of Annexure- 1 series has not been fulfilled by any of the petitioners amongst petitioner nos. 2 to 7 and one or the other documents placed on writ record by the petitioner nos. 2 to 7 is not found in the records of DVC, then there is no question of any allotment of plot or shop to petitioner nos. 2 to 7 and their claim be rejected by a reasoned order. 20. The petitioner nos. 2 to 7 shall appear before the respondent no.4 with separate detailed representation and supporting documents and a copy of this writ records on 31st January 2025 at 11.00 am. Filing of one copy of the writ records would suffice for all the 7 concerned petitioners i.e. petitioner nos. 2 to 7. Separate reasoned order be passed in connection with each of the petitioner nos. 2 to 7. 21. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 22. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed. Pankaj (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 8