Institute Of Trade And Industrial ... vs Delhi Development Authority
2000 Latest Caselaw 640 Del

ORDER

DR. M.K. Sharma, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 12th February, 1988 issued by the Deputy Director, DDA intimating the petitioner that cost of the institutional land had been raised by the Government of India from Rs. 8,00,000/- to Rs. 9,50,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of money as stipulated in the said letter. The petitioner has also challenged the letter dated 20.12.1988 whereby the petitioner was further informed that the cost of the institutional land had since been revised by the Government of India from Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.23,75,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and in that view of the matter directing the petitioner to deposit a further sum of amount as contended therein.

2. The petitioner had challenged the legality of the aforesaid letters on the ground that the respondent has no jurisdiction to unilaterally increase price of the land in an arbitrary, unjust and illegal manner.

3. The petitioner is an institution and applied for allotment of land for furtherance of its aims and objects as stated in the memorandum of association of the institution. Pursuant to the aforesaid application, the respondent/DDA by letter dated 16.7.1987 informed the petitioner the decision of the respondent/DDA to allot on perpetual leasehold basis a plot No.51 measuring 1200 sq. yds. approximately in Pankha Road for institution building on usual terms and conditions as given in the agreement for lease/perpetual lease. In the said letter of allotment it was stipulated by the respondent/DDA that the petitioner would be required to pay the cost of land measuring 1200 sq. yds. at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre provisionally with annual ground rent @ 2 1/2% per annum on the total premium and that the society would also have to give an undertaking to the effect that they would pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided/demanded by the DDA. There was a further stipulation to the effect that the respondent reserves its right to alter any terms and conditions on its discretion. Under the aforesaid letter the petitioner was informed that if the terms and conditions, as mentioned in the said letter of allotment including those which are mentioned hereinabove, were acceptable to the petitioner, the acceptance thereof could be communicated to the respondent/DDA along with a draft of Rs.2,00,400/- in favour of the respondent/DDA.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner deposited the amount as mentioned in the said letter. However, by a subsequent letter being letter dated 12.2.1988 the petitioner was informed that the cost of the institutional land had since been raised by the Government of India from Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.9,50,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987. The petitioner was called upon to deposit a further sum of amount as mentioned in the said letter within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter.

5. It is an admitted position that even after receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner did no deposit the additional amount as demanded in the said letter. A further letter was sent to the petitioner by the respondent/DDA informing the petitioner that cost of the institutional land had since been raised by the Government of India Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.23,75,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987. By the said letter the petitioner was asked to deposit the difference in rates within 30 days from the date of issue of the said letter. It was also mentioned that in case the payment was not received within the aforesaid stipulated period, action to cancel the allotment would be taken. Immediately after receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the legality of the aforesaid two letters, on which notice was issued by this court and an interim order was passed on 25th January, 1989 staying the operation of the impugned letter dated 20th December, 1988.

6. The respondent/DDA entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit stating that even at the time of allotment of land and particularly, by the order of allotment it was made clear to the petitioner that the rate of Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre was being charged provisionally and that the petitioner would have to pay the difference in the rates of the land as might be decided and determined by the Central Government. It was also stated that at the time when the allotment letter was issued, revision in rates of land was in process and, therefore, the aforesaid stipulation was added to the allotment letter. It was alleged that the petitioner also accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions of the allotment and, therefore, the petitioner has no right to challenge the aforesaid increase in the rates being charged from the petitioner.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that on the pleadings of the parties, the issue that arises for consideration of this court is whether the respondent could demand from the petitioner land rates at Rs.23,75,000/- per acre. According to him, the aforesaid issue is no longer res integra in view of Division Bench decision of this court in DDA Vs. Lala Amarnath Educational & Human society & Anr. . He also relied upon the ratio of the decision in Shri R. R. Mehta Educational Trust Vs. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. . He submitted that in terms of the allotment letter the difference in cost of land has to be on the basis of 'no profit no loss' and if the same is calculated on the basis thereof, the rate the respondent/DDA could demand from the petitioner would be Rs.9,50,000/- per acre at the most and, therefore, the respondent cannot charge a higher amount than the said amount. He fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay at the rate of Rs.9,50,000/- per acre for the land allotted to it in the light of the decision in Lala Amarnath Educational and Human Society's case (Supra).

8. The officer appearing for the respondent/DDA, however, submitted that the court shall have no power to exercise its jurisdiction in a matter relating to price fixation by the respondent/DDA. She also submitted that it was specifically mentioned in the letter of allotment that the rate fixed at Rs.8,00,000/- per acre was provisional and that the petitioner would be liable to pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided/demanded by the DDA. Therefore, according to her, when subsequently the Central Government revised the land rate, the recommendation of DDA was within its jurisdiction to demand a higher rate of land from the petitioner, which is in parity with the price fixed by the Central Government.

9. As per terms of the allotment as intimated to the petitioner through the letter of allotment dated 16.7.1987, the petitioner was liable to pay the price of the land at the rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre. The said rate was, however, made provisional and an undertaking was also sought for from the petitioner that they would pay the difference of amount of land as decided/demanded by the DDA. The aforesaid term was accepted by the petitioner and the amount sought for by the said letter was deposited by the petitioner. From the letter dated 12.2.1988 it traspires that cost of the institutional land was raised by the Government of India from Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.9,50,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987 and the petitioner was asked to deposit the aforesaid difference in the rate.

10. The petitioner was handed over possession of the said land on 21.4.1988 and after a lapse of about eight months of handing over possession a subsequent letter was sent to the petitioner increasing the cost of the said land to Rs.23,75,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987. In Lala Amarnath Educational and Human Society's case (Supra) it was held by the Division Bench of this court that when earlier the allotment letters were issued and the societies gave undertakings to pay the difference of cost of land all concerned were under the belief that any enhancement in the cost of land would be with reference to the increased cost of acquisition and other development charges and no one could even entertain a belief that basis of 'no profit no loss' would altogether change and the authorities would demand difference in cost of land on the basis of market value in contravention of the conditions as given in Rule 20 of The Delhi Development Authority (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules, 1981.

11. I have carefully perused the ratio of the aforesaid decision and on careful perusal of the same I find that the societies in the said cases were also allotted land between the period 1.4.1987 to 3.10.1988 and that the allotment letter issued to them stipulated that the land was being allotted for school building at the provisional rate of Rs.8,00,000/- per acre and further that the society would pay the difference of cost of land as may be decided by the Government of India/DDA. In the said case also the societies were given possession of the respective lands allotted to them. It also transpires that subsequently the respondent addressed letters to all the said societies stating that the cost of institutional land had since been raised by the Government of India from Rs.8,00,000/- per acre to Rs.23,75,000/- per acre w.e.f. 1.4.1987.

12. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and the decision in Little Angles case (supra) is distinguishable on facts. In the said case of Little Angles various societies were involved, who received orders of allotment subsequent to 3.10.1988 i.e. somewhere in and around 1991-92. In paragraphs 21 and 22 of the said case the distinction between the cases of Lala Amarnath Educational and Human Society (supra) and the Little Angles Public School (supra) has been succinctly brought out. Like Lala Amarnath's case (supra), in the present case also the proviional rate was on 'no profit no loss' basis for the preceding years whereas the demand in the case of Little Angles Public School Society (supra) was on the basis of market value. Therefore, the case in hand clearly stands on a different footing from that of Little Angles School Society and in my considered opinion, the ratio of the decision in Lala Amarnath Educational Society (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In my considered opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA has no merit in view of the settled law, as stated above. The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed, but without any cost, and I hold that the petitioner is liable to pay at the rate of Rs.9,50,000/- per acre. The petitioner has already paid certain sum of amount on account of land and, therefore, the petitioner shall be liable to pay the balance amount calculating the land rate at the rate of Rs.9,50,000/- per acre with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount from 12.2.1988, the date of raising demand by the DDA, till payment.