Lalit Madhan And Anr. vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1563 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 13th September 1996 passed in CW 741/90 by a learned single Judge of this court whereby and whereunder the said writ petition was "allowed only to the extent of directing the respondents to execute and get registered, in accordance with law, the requisite perpetual lease deed in petitioner's favor within a period of two months from today" (13th September 1996).

2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. In May 1988, an advertisement was published by the respondents herein to the effect that in respect of sale of Nazul land including plot No. A-1/171-A, Janakpuri, New Delhi measuring 444 sq. mts., a public auction would be held. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the said advertisement, the appellants herein participated in the bid and their offer having been found to be highest, the same was accepted. The appellants herein deposited 25% of the bid price. According to the appellants, on depositing the said amount, they found that several persons had encroached upon the land in question. By a letter dated 16th June 1988, the appellant brought the said matter to the notice of the respondents and requested them for removal of the encroachments before any further demand was raised by them. Allegedly, despite receipt of the said letter, the respondents issued demand notice on 22nd June 1988. The appellant requested for deferment of the said notice and requested the respondents to remove encroachments and hand over possession of the plot, pursuant to or in furtherance whereof, the appellant deposited the balance amount of 75% of the bid price to save forfeiture of earnest money in terms of earlier communication on or about 20th July 1988. The petitioner, thereafter, issued several letters for handing over peaceful possession of the land in question but no reply thereto was received from the respondents herein.

3. On or about 2nd March 19990, the petitioner filed a writ petition, inter alia, praying for the following relief:

"b) Direct the Delhi Development Authority to pay interest @ 24% per annum on the amount deposited with the Delhi Development Authority i.e. Rs. 21,05,000/- (Rupees twenty one lacs and five thousand only) since the date of deposit till the date the respondents hand over actual physical possession of the auctioned plot."

4. In the said writ petition, orders were passed from time to time. On or about 24th February, 1994, it was observed:

"Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to finalize the offer of allotment of an alternate plot within six weeks from today failing which the respondent-DDA will pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposit from the date the sum was received. List the matter on 25th April, 1994. Director, Lease Administration, DDA should be present on the next date."

5. As the possession of alternative plot was not made available, the appellants herein filed contempt petition for not complying with the said order, which was marked as CCP 232/1994. By reason of an order dated 13th September 1994 in CW No. 741/1990, it was directed:

"Mr. Bhushan learned counsel for the respondent submits that jhuggis have been vacated yesterday and it will take a few more days to clear the site of the jhuggis. I direct the DDA to hand over the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner by 30th September, 1994. As an interim relief to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 1 lac shall be paid by the DDA to the petitioner and (his payment will be without prejudice to the respondent's contention that interest should not be ordered. The question of interest shall have to be finally decided at the time of final disposal of the writ petition and in case the court decides that the interest need not be paid. The petitioner should be prepared to refund this amount. It is also clarified that the DDA shall, make an attempt to remove the underground wires, the poles etc. from the plot before handing over possession of the plot to the petitioner. If there as any problem it shall be reported to this court. I am told that there is a Peepal tree in the centre of the plot. The same shall be removed.

The interim relief, which is granted as above, is without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 24th February, 1994 as well as the contentions of the respondent. The payment shall be made within a week.

Call on 3rd October, 1994 for final disposal in ANMM (at the end), C.C.P. will also be listed on that date."

6. Thereafter, possession was handed over to the petitioner on 26th September 1994. After that, the impugned judgment dated 13th September 1996 was passed.

7. Mr. Raman Kapur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, inter alia, would submit that from the conspectus of events, as noticed hereinbefore, it would be evident that the petitioner was deprived of lawful possession of the land in question for a period of about eight years and as such, as suffered immense loss and damages. The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the fact that constructions are required to be raised within a period of two years from the date of grant of possession, had the same been granted in the year 1988, the appellants could have raised constructions thereupon with the stipulated time. The learned counsel would contend that as a large sum of amount namely Rs. 21,05,000/- was blocked for a long time, the petitioner has a right to be compensated by way of grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

8. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that the action of the DDA was neither arbitrary nor unlawful. It was pointed out that for the purpose of removal of the said encroachment, the encroachers were required to be relocated at the alternative site wherefor the DDA was required to pay a sum of Rs. 29,000/- per jhuggi to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. An amount of Rs. 22,33,000/- was paid by the DDA on 13th April 1994 and 16th April 1994 where after the Municipal Corporation of Delhi was requested to initiate the work of rehabilitation of jhuggi-dwellers on top priority basis. A joint survey of jhuggi clusters was carried out by the staff of the DDA and MCD and despite having sent the cheques and reminders issued, the jhuggi clusters had not been removed wherefor on 7th June, 1994, another reminder was sent. The order of the court had also been communicated to the Director (Slum & JJ) of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

9. According to the learned counsel, even extension of time was sought for delivery of possession to the appellants herein. He had been put in possession prior to 6th December, 1994, which was the stipulated period.

10. In the afore-mentioned backdrop of events, the question which arose for consideration before the learned single Judge was as regards payment of interest only.

11. The learned single Judge, inter alia, held:

(i) That the unauthorized encroachments being not a latent defect, the petitioner could have become aware thereof when he participated and made the highest bid inasmuch as the encroachment being a patent defect, the same could have been noticed by him.

(ii) It was for the petitioner to ensure that the plot is such of which physical possession could be obtained immediately on deposit of the balance amount.

(iii) Encroachment by jhuggi-dwellers is not unknown in Delhi. In any event, before the bids was offered, the appellant ought to have carried out the inspection of the plot.

(iv) The appellant knowing fully well that the encroachment still existed, deposited the balance amount of 75% and thus would "be deemed to have acquiesced with the situation that he would get physical possession only when the encroachers are removed by the respondents".

(v) The respondents paid a sum of Rs. 22,33,000/- for getting is more than the amount deposited by the appellants herein towards the bid amount.

(vi) As the appellants herein had already been paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the respondents under the direction of this court, no further amount can be directed to be paid by way of damages or interest.

(vii) The inconvenience caused to the petitioner in not taking prompt action was the controversy when attention of the respondents was drawn by the appellant in the year 1988 and, thus, the action on the part of the respondents cannot be considered to be unreasonable or inadequate.

12. Although it is true that the appellant had suffered loss, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this court should interfere with the impugned judgment.

13. The learned single Judge has assigned cogent and valid reasons for not granting any interest in favor of the appellants herein. Having regard to the encroachments made by the jhuggi-dwellers, the respondent has also suffered a loss and in fact, its loss was more than the appellant himself inasmuch as they had to bear a heavy expenditure which is more than the amount deposited by the appellant herein.

14. Furthermore, this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the matter by way f grant of interest or otherwise only in the event it is found that the action on the part of the respondents was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. It is true that ordinarily, a person who had been deprived of an amount for a long tim, would be directed to be compensated by way of interest but before a writ court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, the court may have to adjust the equities between the parties. It is true that a learned single Judge of this court by an order dated 24th February 1994 observed that interest at the rate of 18% per annum would have to be paid from the date the sum was received. But an interim order passed by this court by a learned single Judge of this court had merged with the final order. While passing the final order the learned single Judge has taken into consideration all the relevant facts.

15. Having regard to the fats and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that if in a case of this nature no interest was directed to be paid by way of damages, this court may not interfere with the impugned judgment although there are two possible views in the matter.

16. The court, it is trite, does not interfere when the order is not right, but interferes when it is clearly wrong (See Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. etc. etc. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. , .

17. For the reasons afore-mentioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly but in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.