Delhi Development Authority ... vs Shri S.P. Bansal S/O Shri Gian ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 1717 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 9th February, 2000 in CWP No. 4653/1996.

2. The Appellant had issued an advertisement in the newspaper for auction of several plots of land. One of the plots sought to be auctioned on 23rd October, 1996 was described as A-69 (corner plot), Jhilmil Industrial Area and the reserve price of this plot was shown as Rs. 13,00,281/-. Another plot to be auctioned on 25th October, 1996 was described as A-70, Jhilmil Industrial Area and the reserve price of this plot was shown as Rs. 11,82,073/-.

3. The Respondent participated in the auction in respect of A-69 (corner plot) and offered the highest bid of Rs. 20,40,000/-. As required, he deposited 25% of the bid amount of Rs. 5,10,000/- immediately after the auction and the sale was then confirmed by the Appellant. Thereafter, the Appellant issued a demand letter to the Respondent asking him to deposit the balance amount plus other charges.

4. According to the Respondent, he then visited the site and found that A-69 (corner plot) was not in fact a corner plot. Since he felt that a corner plot had some advantages and that he had been misled in the auction, he requested the Appellant to allot him a corner plot, as was held out in the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper. This request was not acceded to nor did the Appellant agree to return the amount deposited by the Respondent. Faced with this situation, the Respondent filed a writ petition in this Court seeking the allotment of a corner plot.

5. The Appellant filed a counter affidavit in which it was stated that some mistake had occurred in the advertisement. In fact, A-69 was wrongly described as a corner plot and A-70 was actually the corner plot. The reserve price was also wrongly mentioned in the advertisement.

6. According to the Appellant, they noticed the mistake before the auction began and made a public announcement to this effect and it is only thereafter that the auction was held on 23rd October, 1996 for A-69, not being a corner plot. It was also stated in the counter affidavit that the bid sheet also indicated the correction/correct position and the Respondent had no doubt about the plot that he was bidding for.

7. The learned Single Judge held, and we think rightly, that there was no documentary evidence available on record with the Appellant to show that the correct position as mentioned in the counter affidavit was publicly announced before the auction took place. In the absence of any documentary evidence in this regard, it could not be assumed that an oral announcement was made by the Appellant. In fact, the learned Single Judge has observed that under these circumstances the appropriate course of action for the Appellant would have been to issue a corrigendum in the newspaper well before the auction, and if that was not possible then to postpone the auction, rather than to depend upon any oral announcement.

8. As regards the bid sheet which, according to the Appellant also showed the correct position, it was noted by the learned Single Judge that it was not signed by any of the participants in the auction and, therefore, it could not be relied upon to dispute the case of the Respondent. We do not find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in taking this view.

9. As regards the final relief granted to the Respondent by the learned Single Judge, it was declared that the auction in respect of plot No. A-69 was vitiated and null and void. The Appellant was directed to return the amount deposited by the Respondent within three weeks and the Appellant was at liberty to issue a fresh advertisement for sale of the said property.

10. When this appeal was filed by the Appellant, it appears that learned counsel for the Respondent made some grievance about not being awarded any interest for the amount deposited by his client. Accordingly, on 12th May, 2000, the following order was passed by a Division Bench of this Court:-

"...The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the learned Single Judge has not allowed any interest on the amount to be refunded even though the money is lying with the DDA since 23rd October, 1996. The question of award of interest will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal...."

11. We have heard both the learned counsel on the question of interest, if any, to be paid to the Respondent.

12. We are of the view that since the Appellant has utilized the money of the Respondent, which is a considerable amount for an individual, the Respondent should be entitled to some interest. It is well known that interest is not a penalty and it is only intended to compensate a person who has been deprived of use of his money vide Union of India v. SEIL Ltd., LPA No. 331-332/2005 decided on 7th December, 2005. In the present case, the admitted position is that the Respondent was deprived of the use of Rs. 5,10,000/- since 23rd October, 1996. Accordingly, we direct the Appellant to return this amount to the Respondent with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The Respondent will also be entitled to costs of Rs. 5,000/-.