JUDGMENT C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners seek quashing of demand notice dated 16.1.1996 issued by respondent/DDA demanding a composition fee of Rs. 76,608/- from the petitioners.
2. The petitioners purchased a plot of land bearing No. D-14/4, measuring 201.60 sq.mts. in an open public auction for a sum of Rs. 2,62,000/-. Possession of the plot was given to the petitioners on 11.2.1986. However, the lease deed was executed and registered on 23.4.1987. As per the lease deed, the petitioners were required to make construction on the said plot within a period of three years from the date of possession. By letter dated 4.3.1986 the petitioners informed the respondent/DDA that there was no basic amenities viz. electricity, water and sewerage etc. and the petitioners were unable to make construction on the plot in question. It was also stated in the letter that DDA had committed fraud upon the petitioners by auctioning the undeveloped plot. Reminders were issued to the respondent/DDA on 19.5.1986, 9.3.1987, 13.9.1993, 30.8.1994 and 1.9.1994. The respondent/DDA failed to respond to the aforesaid letter and reminders. By notice dated 16.1.1996, the respondent/DDA imposed a penalty of Rs. 76,608/- on the petitioners on the ground that building was not completed/constructed within the stipulated time. Hence the present petition.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent/DDA. However, counter affidavit filed by respondent/DDA way back in December, 1996 is on record wherein the respondent/DDA stated that petitioner should have satisfied themselves regarding availability of civic amenities before bidding for the plot. The water and sewerage connection was to be provided by M.C.D. and the electricity connection by D.E.S.U. It is admitted by respondent/DDA that water was made available in August, 1989. It was also stated that penalty of Rs. 76,608/- was imposed on the petitioners on account of non-construction for the period 11.2.1989 to 31.3.1996. It was also stated that on inspection on 17.3.1994 it was found that adjoining plots had been constructed and the units were running their industries on them. It was stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent/DDA on 6th August, 2001 that a sum of Rs. 99,51,601/- was deposited with Delhi Vidyut Board towards electrification of the bifurcated plots in Blocks D&F in three stages on 10.6.1987, 6.10.1987 and 13.1.1998.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents on record.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it is the statutory duty of the DDA under Rule 26 and Rule 29 of the Nazul Rule 1981 to auction the plots only after these are fully developed and all amenities mentioned in Section 2-A of Delhi Development Act, 1957 are provided. The respondent/DDA has itself failed to fulfill its statutory duties and imposed penalty on the petitioners for is own default. The penalty was not warranted.
6. From the perusal of the documents on record, it appears that respondent/DDA had declared that what was being auctioned were developed industrial plots but admittedly up to 1989 civic services and amenities were not available. The petitioners were only informed in 1995 that essential services had been provided in 1989. In terms of the lease, construction was to be completed within two years from 11.2.1986. Lease was executed only in April, 1987. The petitioners addressed communications to the respondents and pointed out in 1993 and 1994 that essential amenities were lacking and construction could into be commenced. Extension was sought. Respondents had misrepresented to the petitioner, declaring land was developed. The water lines, sewerage lines and electricity polls were not provided. The petitioners ought to have granted reasonable time for construction. The respondent/DDA was required to fulfill its statutory duty under Rule 26 and Rule 29 of the Nazul Rule 1981 before auctioning the plots. It had failed to do so. Despite failure on the part of respondent/DDA to fulfil its statutory duties under Nazul Rules, the respondent/DDA imposed penalty on the petitioners for not completing the construction. The act of the respondent/DDA cannot be sustained in light of the facts narrated above.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The demand notice dated 16.1.1996 issued by respondent/DDA demanding a composition fee of Rs. 76,608/- from the petitioners is quashed.