Delhi Development Authority ... vs Sh. Varinder Kumar Dewan S/O. Late ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 208 Del

JUDGMENT

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Respondents (writ petitioners) are the legal heirs of Shri T.L. Dewan who was allotted a plot of land by the Appellant on 13th February, 1975 bearing No. 28, Road No. 29, Punjabi Bagh Extension measuring 244 Sq. meters. Shri Dewan unfortunately passed away on 6th June, 1977. After his death, the writ petitioners wrote to the Appellant for mutation of their records by incorporating therein the names of the writ petitioners.

2. A reading of the averments in the writ petition discloses a sorry state of affairs in as much as for one reason or another the Appellant kept delaying the mutation by asking the writ petitioners to produce all sorts of documents and complete various formalities. Eventually, after pursuing the matter for 12 years, the writ petitioners were successful in persuading the Appellant to recognise them as the rightful owners of the plot of land and on 8th June, 1989 a lease deed was executed between the parties. In the meanwhile, the cost of construction had escalated and so the writ petitioners were not able to carry out construction. Taking advantage of this, on 6th February, 1996, the Appellant sent them a demand for a sum of Rs. 1,81,606/- as charges on account of non- construction. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioners filed CWP No. 1955/1996 out of which the impugned judgment and order has arisen.

3. A learned Single Judge of this Court passed an order on 15th May, 1996 staying the operation of the impugned demand subject to the writ petitioners depositing a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the Appellant within four weeks. The deposit was made in time.

4. It appears that during the hearing of the writ petition, the Appellant disputed the deposit of certain amounts made by the writ petitioners. For instance, the deposit of Rs. 1 lakh was disputed by the Appellant but was eventually conceded by it. The Appellant also disputed a deposit of Rs. 5,872/- made by the writ petitioners on 16th April, 1991 as charges for non-construction for the period 1990-91. According to the writ petitioners, the failure of the Appellant to account for this amount has a cascading result reducing the impugned demand by Rs. 36,709/-.

5. Taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant did not give to the writ petitioners the benefit of the deposit of Rs. 1 lakh as well as the sum of Rs. 5,872/-, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the impugned demand dated 6th February, 2001 raised by the Appellant had to be quashed. By the impugned judgment and order dated 30th October, 2003, the learned Single Judge allowed the prayer of the writ petitioners and set aside the impugned demand, with liberty to the Appellant to recalculate the demand in accordance with law.

6. Feeling aggrieved by certain observations in the judgment and order dated 30th October, 2003 the Appellant filed a review application before the learned Single Judge, but the review application was dismissed on 20th February, 2004 Thereafter, the Appellant has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent.

7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that there is absolutely no substance in this appeal. In the first instance, the Appellant made the writ petitioners run from pillar to post to have the mutation made in their favor. This took as much as 12 years. Thereafter, without any apparent rhyme or reason, the Appellant declined to give the benefit of some deposits made by the writ petitioners. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Judge was left with no option but to quash the demand raised by the Appellant, which was quite clearly based on a poor accounting procedure adopted by the Appellant. A small amount of Rs. 5,872/- deposited by the writ petitioners was not accounted for by the Appellant resulting in a calculation error of Rs. 36,709/-. According to the written submissions given by the writ petitioners, the fresh calculations submitted by the Appellant show that the cascading effect was to the extent of Rs. 62,460/-. Be that as it may, it is not necessary for us to go into these calculations since we are satisfied that in view of the substantial errors committed by the Appellant, the writ petition was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to the Appellant to re-calculate the amount.

8. It was submitted by learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge had erroneously recorded that the Appellant was not permitting the writ petitioners to construct on the plot in the absence of full payment. We do not agree. The effect of the enormous delay in executing the lease deed coupled with an unjustified demand made without properly accounting for deposits made by the writ petitioners had the natural consequence of preventing them from raising construction on the plot of land. The blame for this state of affairs must lie on the Appellant, who failed to act with due dispatch or in accordance with law, as stated above.

9. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-.