Mohd Zameel vs Dda And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 1876 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the notices of respondent-DDA cancelling the allotment made in favor of the petitioners of the various shops situated in New Subzi Mandi, Okhla.

2. The initial allotments were made to the petitioners on a decision being taken to shift the Phool Mandi, Daryaganj, Delhi to be relocated in the new Subzi Mandi, Okhla. A survey was conducted by the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Azadpur and a list of persons was prepared who were found eligible for allotment in the new Subzi Mandi, Okhla. The initial draw of lots was held in 1985 but the same was cancelled since it was not approved by the Lt. Governor and the second draw was held in the year 1987. Demand letters were issued to the eligible persons/allottees and a demand was made for 1/3rd of the premium for the new site on which payment possession was to be given. The remaining 2/3rd premium was payable in two half-yearly Installments with interest in case of belated payment.

3. The initial allotments were made pending certain litigation and it is stated in the counter affidavit that an order dated 18.12.1997 was passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA 293/97 in favor of the respondent DDA and the SLP against the same was dismissed being SLP No. CA 23801/97. However, while dismissing the SLP the Supreme Court took note of the objection of the rate of interest being alleged to be excessive and a statement was made by counsel for the respondent DDA that on a representation being made regarding fixation of proper rate of interest the same would be examined by the authorities. It was, however, clarified by the Supreme Court that such representation would be considered only after the petitioners shifted to the present place. The said representations were thereafter made and an order was passed by the Lt. Governor dated 31.12.1998 stating that the interest to be charged would be 18% instead of 25% per annum. It was further directed that the allottees be asked to deposit the entire interest by 31.3.1999 failing which the allotment would be treated as cancelled. On a representation being made to extend the time it was directed by the Lt. Governor that the interest be charged in 3 Installments up to 31.12.1999 and that no further accommodation should be provided.

4. The cases of persons who failed to make the payment along with the interest up to 31.12.1999 were considered by the competent authority and a decision was taken to cancel the allotment.

5. It is relevant to note that some of the petitioners before this court are in fact attorneys and it appears that the shops in question have been transferred on power of attorney basis. This is the position in four of the writ petitions being CWs No. 2212/2000, 2444/2000, 2196/2000 and CW No. 2411/2000.

6. In the counter affidavit it is also stated that numerous reminders have been sent calling upon to make the payment but the payment has not been made and since the balance 2/3rd amount was not paid for almost 8 years the petitioners are not entitled to any indulgence. It may also be noted that the petitioners sought to amend the writ petition which amendment was allowed. In terms of the amendment certain facts were sought to be incorporated regarding the issue of rates. The document sought to be relied upon is dated 22.3.1979 issued by the DDA to the General Secretary of the Association of Vegetable Merchants of Phool Mandi, Daryaganj in which it is communicated that a decision has been taken to allot 16 sq. mtr plots to Masha Khos on payment of premium in lumpsum for which advertisement was to be issued shortly. A copy of the counter affidavit filed in the earlier CW No. 2481/1984 has also been placed on record where the stand of the DDA for shifting of these persons has been set out.

7. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

8. The aforesaid facts clearly show that the allotments were made as far back as in 1987 when demand letters were issued and 1/3rd of the premium amount was directed to be paid. These amounts were so paid but the balance amount as also the interest was not paid. The litigation relating to the allotments only resulted in the limited order by the Supreme Court directing that the representation in respect of the rate of interest made by the allottees be considered. This was so considered and the interest was reduced from 25% to 18% per annum and the time was granted to make the entire deposit. This time was even further extended up to 31.12.1999 and the interest was to be paid in three Installments. Despite this indulgence the payments have not been made though reminders were sent for the same.

9. The petitioners cannot be permitted to enjoy the allotments of the shops without making payment in terms of the allotment letter. The challenge to the shifting and the pricing including rate of interest also did not succeed before the Supreme Court and due concessions have already been made in respect of rate of interest.

10. In my considered view the petitioners are not entitled to any further concessions for payment of Installments. It may be noted that no interim orders were granted during the pendency of the writ petition and it has not been stated as to what is the present position of the petitioners in so far as their occupation of the shops is concerned. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that the writ petitions are pending since 2000, it is directed that in case the petitioners pay the full amount ad demanded of interest with up to date interest at the same rate within a period of one month from today, the impugned action of the respondent DDA is cancelling the allotment of shop will not be given effect to. It is, however, made clear that in case of failure to make such payment respondent DDA would be free to proceed in terms of the cancellation orders/notices.

11. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.