Ravi Gupta vs. Delhi Development Authority And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Gupta, was allotted Kiosk No. 1 at Vikas Sadan, New Delhi, on a license basis by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, on March 13, 2002, for stamp vending. The allotment letter stipulated a monthly license fee of Rs. 2,227, with a 10% annual increase. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) was directed to hand over possession to the petitioner. In 2007, the DDA stated in a counter-affidavit that it had no contractual obligation regarding the kiosk. The petitioner made representations for regularization to freehold status, which were not responded to. On February 11, 2019, the Deputy Director (LPC), DDA, issued a letter cancelling the petitioner's license and directing him to hand over possession of the kiosk. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this letter.

Held

The Court held that the Deputy Director (LPC), DDA, acted within its authority. While the initial allotment was by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, the DDA is the owner of the site. The DDA, as the superior lessor, has the right to repossess the site. The Court found that the license could be revoked under Sections 60, 61, and 62 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882. Specifically, Clause (c) and (f) of Section 62 were considered relevant, suggesting revocation due to the expiry of a limited period or the attainment/abandonment of the specified purpose. The Court reasoned that the initial allotment was to serve public interest, but there was no stipulation for indefinite extension. The petitioner, having enjoyed permissive possession for a long time, could not invoke public law remedies upon revocation. The DDA is entitled to put the site to public auction for greater revenue. The petitioner was granted sufficient time to vacate and no further hearing was required.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Deputy Director (LPC), DDA, acted within its authority in issuing the letter dated February 11, 2019, cancelling the petitioner's license, considering the kiosk was allotted by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, and the DDA had previously stated no contractual obligation? Petitioner's argument: The Deputy Director (LPC), DDA, exceeded its authority as the allotment was made by the Divisional Commissioner, GNCTD, not the DDA. The DDA's prior statement of no contractual obligation further supports this. The impugned letter also fails to mention any cancellation order from the GNCTD. Revenue/State's argument: Not recorded. 2. Whether the license granted to the petitioner was perpetual and could not be cancelled, especially given the terms of allotment and the alleged purpose of the kiosk? Petitioner's argument: The license was perpetual with no specified term limit. The terms did not restrict the use solely to stamp vending, and the DDA itself had clarified in an RTI response that the kiosk was for documentation work and a stamp vendor. The cancellation was malafide and arbitrary. Revenue/State's argument: The DDA, as the owner of the site, is entitled to revoke the license. The license was granted for a specific purpose and potentially for a limited period, and its revocation can be inferred under relevant provisions of the Indian Easements Act, 1882, especially considering the DDA's interest in generating revenue through public auction.