Delhi High Court
Jagmal Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 February, 2005
Author: B Patel
Bench: B Patel, S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
B.C. Patel, C.J.
1. The appellant had filed the appeal aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge on 17.8.2004.
2. The appellant had in fact succeeded to a large extent before the learned Single Judge and the only controversy raised before us is on the question of pricing of shops. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that since the appellant had surrendered land in 1986 and was held entitled to the same, it is based on the reserve price of 1986 which should be applied in the present case while the learned Single Judge applied the reserve price for the year 1989.
3. It has to be noticed that the rights of the appellant arose on account of the settlement arrived at whereby the respondents were desirous of obtaining the land and agreed to give residential plot and two shops. The residential plot was admittedly given and the question was of the pricing of the two shops.
4. On the issue of pricing, learned Single Judge observed as under:-
''29. One incidental issue which has been argued be dealt with and decided. Petitioners state that the reserve price has to be price as of the year 1986. As per DDA, the reserve price has to be as per the date of allotment meaning thereby qua Jagmal Singh it has to be as of the year 1989 when allotment was made to him and qua Jal Singh it would have to be of the date of allotment.
XXX XXX XXX
32. The letters between the parties were exchanged in the year 1986. It was expected of the DDA to have offered the shops within a reasonable time. Considering the way DDA, works 2 to 3 years after stretching all limits of tolerance would certainly be a reasonable period. In any case, allotment was made to Jagmal Singh in 1989. DDA would, therefore, in any case be entitled to charge the reserve price as of the year 1989. Same price should be charged from the brother.''
5. it is thus clear that the date of allotment has been taken as the relevant date, though in case of inordinate delay for allotment, the DDA has been directed to determine the cost on an earlier date of pricing and not on the date of allotment. It is in the conspectus of all the facts taken into consideration that the learned Single Judge has exercised discretion to determine the cut off date of pricing as 1989. We seen no reason to interfere with the same.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further urges that in LPA No.1046 of 2004 additional plea taken is that the shop which was originally allotted in 1989 be made available to the appellant.
7. As it transpires that the said shop was allotted to third party and is no more available. A directions has thus been issued in the impugned order in para 33(4) that a shop of the same size or as approximate as it could be to the size of shop earlier allotted be allotted along with the demand at the reserve price of the year 1989.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant states that it is only the original shop which should be so allotted.
9. We are in agreement with the views taken by the learned Single Judge that as third party interest has been created so the appellant is entitled to the shop of a similar size and on the same floor. We find no reason to interfere even with this direction.
10. Dismissed.
