The National Electric Supply And ... vs Lt. Governor And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 211 Del

JUDGMENT

J. Goswamy, J.

(1) This application under section 151 of the Code of civil Procedure has been filed by M/s. The National Electric Supply & Trading Corporation (P) Ltd. for direction to the respondent to comply with the order dated 24.1.1986 passed by this Court in Ccp No. 10

(2) The petitioner was running an industry in the non-conforming area. He was asked to shift his industry and an alternative plot measuring one acre was offered to the petitioner by letter dated 30.3.1968 at the rate of Rs. 25.00 per Sq. Yd. The petitioner was directed to deposit 50"o of the amount calculated the rate of Rs. 25.00 per Sq. Yd. The petitioner accordingly deposited the said amount. However, by a subsequent letter dated 2.1.1970 the petitioner Was intimated that a revised demand has been raised against him and he had to pay the premium of a plot of 4840 Sq. Yds. approximately at the rate of Rs. 48.60 per Sq. Yd. He was accordingly asked to deposit the additional amount within a specified time. This offer was not acceptable to the petitioner and he entered into correspondence with the respondents. Finally, by letter dated 23.9.1977, the petitioner w"s asked to deposit the amount in accordance with letter dated 2.1.1970 within a period of 15 days from the date of the issue of the said letter, failing which, action to cancel the allotment was to be taken.

(3) The petitioner challenged aforesaid letters by filing a civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondent-Delhi Development Authority from charging anything over and above Rs. 25.00 per Sq. Yd. and from cancelling the allotment. During the pendency of the suit, the learned trial Judge passed an interim order on 17.7.1982. By the said order, the petitioner was to deposit the premium at the rate of Rs. 48.60 per Sq. Yd. and the Delhi Development Authority was to hand over the possession of the plot. In terms of the said order, the petitioner deposited the balance amount since he had already deposited Rs. 60.000.00 and odd as directed by the learned trial Judge. In spite of that no possession of the plot was given to the petitioner. The suit of the petitioner was finally decreed as prayed for by judgment and decree dated 25.11.1982.

(4) Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent-Delhi Development Authority filed an appeal. Since the possession of the plot had not been given to the petitioner in spite of his having deposited the premium as directed, he filed a petition for contempt of court being Ccp No. 105 of 1983. During the pendency of the Ccp and the appeal, it appears that the parties arrived at a settlement. The settlement can be inferred from letter of the petitioner and reply thereto by the respondent. The petitioner by his letter dated 1.3.1984 intimated to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent : "But being tired of litigation and with a view to avoid further delay, we are prepared to accept the possession of the said one acre plot even at the enhanced flat rate of Rs. 45.60 only per Sq. Yd. provided all the additional charges such as interest, penatly, restoration or any other charges whatsoever are waived off and we are given the vacant and peaceful possession of the said plot within 15 days on or before 22.3.1984 when the contempt case filed by us against the Delhi Development Authority in the High Court is fixed for final hearing. We undertake that we shall withdraw our case for contempt of court which is pending in the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi."

(5) The respondent replied this letter by their letter No. F6A(38)-66-PT-LSB(1) dated 24.4.1984. The letter reads as under : "With reference to your letter dated 1.3.1984 on the above cited subject I am directed to inform you that since you have accepted the rate of Rs. 45.60 per Sq. Yd. the Delhi Development Authority has agreed to restore the allotment provided you withdraw the petition of contempt of court filed by you in the Hon'ble High Court. On hearing from you, the appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority in the Court of the Addl. District Judge, Delhi will also be withdrawn by the Delhi Development Authority or by making statements in the Court by the parties on the next date of hearing. However, please note that possession of the plot will be handed over to you only after removal of the unauthorised jhuggies from the plot which may take some time."

In view of the aforesaid letter of the respondent the petitioner withdrew his petition for contempt of court and the same was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. All the same the respondent did not give possession of the plot to the petitioner and petitioner filed another application before this Court being Cm 812 of 1985. That application came up before me on various dates. Not having received any satisfactory answer, I even directed the Dy. Director in charge to be present in Court along with the relevant files. There were not less than 15 or 23 hearings in that application. Finally, the respondents offered the plot to the petitioner which measured only 3281 Sq. Yds. while the petitioner was entitled to a plot measuring approximately 4840 Sq. Yds. i.e. one acre. On my suggestion, the petitioner expressed his willingness to accept the smaller plot. The final order was passed on January 24, 1986 which is to the following effect :- "It is not disputed that the petitioners have already taken possession of the plot. The plot, however, measures only 3281 Sq. Yds. while the petitioner was entitled to 4840 Sq. Yds. i.e one acre. The petitioner submits that he is entitled to the remaining land or in any event to the refund of the amount for the portion of the land not given to the petitioner. There can be no dispute about that fact. Mr. Talwar learned counsel for the respondent states and agrees that the balance amount will be refunded to the petitioner within one month from to-day and the petitioner will also be paid interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said amount commencing from 5.II.1982 till the date of payment. In view of this statement of Mr. Talwar, the petitioner is fully satisfied. The petitioner is disposed of accordingly. The lease deed in respect of the plot, of which the petitioner has taken vacant possession, will be executed within a period of one month from the time the petitioner furnishes the required documents. The possession letter will be issued by the respondent within a period of one month from to-day."

(6) However, while giving the refund to the petitioner, the Delhi Development Authority made a fresh calculation thereby charging complete interest from the petitioner right from 1968 till 5.11.1982. The Delhi Development Authority also claimed restoration charges add certain other charges. Aggrieved by this action of the respondent the petitioner has filed the present application. Along with this application, the applicant has enclosed the copies of the letters dated 1.3.1984 and reply thereto dated 24.4.1984. In view of these letters and the order passed by me in Cm 812/85, the learned counsel for the respondent sought several adjournments to sort out the matter out of the court. In spite of there being not less than 10 adjournments, no satisfactory reply has come forth from the respondents.

(7) After giving my careful consideration to the entire matter, I am satisfied that in this case, the respondents have only been playing with the petitioner having arrived at a settlement as far back as March and April, 1984, the respondents still went on to charge interest and other charges from the petitioner. This plea of interest and other charges was available to the respondents even when I passed the order in Cm 812 of 1985 on 24.1.1986. No such claim was put forward before me and to the contrary it was accepted by Mr. Talwar that the respondents-Delhi Development Authority will refund the entire amount with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 5.11.1982. No claim of interest on behalf of the respondent was ever made and in my opinion rightly. It is the late in the day for the respondents to state that they are entitled to any interest from the petitioner.

(8) Consequently, the application is allowed. The respondents are directed to refund the entire amount without deducting anything towards interest or towards other charges within a period of one month from today. The respondents will also pay a sum of Rs. 2500.00 as costs for this application and for other applications whereby there have been not less than 30 hearings in this Court for no fault of the petitioner. The costs and the balance amount should positively be paid within one month from today. The respondents will also comply with all necessary formalities at their end for executing the lease deed.