R.P. Anand And Ors. vs D.D.A.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1740 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. The appellants herein purchased a plot bearing No. 3 DP, Local Shopping Centre, Pitam Pura, New Delhi measuring 135 sq.mts. earmarked as a nursing home site, in a public auction held by the Delhi Development Authority for a sum of Rs.17,81,000/- in the year 1996. The aforesaid bid amount was paid, subsequent to which possession of the plot was also handed over to the appellants. Building plans for construction of a nursing home were submitted for sanction pursuant to which sanction was also granted. Building was also completed pursuant to grant of sanction plan. Perpetual lease deed was also executed. On 1st July, 1999, occupancy certificate was granted.

2. The records disclose that on 4th December, 2001, a request was made by the appellants for change of land use in respect of the aforesaid plot No. 3. In the said letter, the appellants took up the plea that the aforesaid land was purchased by the appellants in open auction for the use of nursing home purpose that but it is a very small plot for the said purpose and therefore there is no scope for using the same as a nursing home. It was accordingly, prayed in the application that the land user of the said plot might be changed to commercial user.

3. The aforesaid request of the appellants was considered at the appropriate level of the Delhi Development Authority. A letter was written on 8th March, 2002 to the appellants informing them that the competent authority acceded to their request for conversion of the land use from nursing home to general commercial subject to payment of Rs. 32,33,250/-. The appellants were directed to deposit the aforesaid amount within sixty days from the date of issue of the aforesaid letter through bank draft so that a formal order for conversion could be issued. Since the appellants did not deposit the aforesaid amount, a subsequent reminder was issued on 24th December, 2004 again directing the appellants to deposit the conversion charges for conversion of land use from nursing home to general commercial. Despite issuance of the aforesaid letters, no written reply was received from the appellants and, therefore, the Delhi Development Authority issued a letter on 28th April, 2005 wherein reference was made to earlier letters dated 8th March, 2002 and reminder dated 24th December, 2004 After making reference to the aforesaid letters, the Delhi Development Authority informed the appellants under letter dated 28th April, 2005 that since till that date they had not deposited the conversion charges even after expiry of three years, it was presumed that they were not interested in the conversion and, therefore, a decision had been taken to cancel the permission of conversion of land user from nursing home to general commercial with immediate effect.

4. Thereafter, another letter was sent by the respondent/DDA to the appellants on 17th June, 2005 in response to the letter of the appellants to the DDA dated 17th May, 2005 informing that the competent authority had already taken a decision for withdrawal of demand letter dated 24th December, 2004 and the change of land use from nursing home to general commercial stands disallowed because of non-compliance of the demand letter issued in 2001. Along with the said letter a copy of the earlier letter dated 28th April, 2005 was also sent to the appellants.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid letters, a writ petition came to be filed by the appellants herein before the learned Single Judge wherein it was contended that the demand of Delhi Development Authority towards charges for conversion was excessive and that it was nearly double of the amount paid by the appellants when they purchased the plot in question. It was also a stand of the appellants herein that one of the co-purchaser, namely, Smt. Wiranwali died in September, 2004 It was urged before the learned Single Judge that having accorded approval for change of the land use, the respondent/DDA cannot resile from the same particularly, in view of Delhi Development Authority's inaction in ensuring that the water and sewage facilities were available in the area.

6. The respondent/Delhi Development Authority denied the plea of the appellants that permission to change user of the land was granted on account of non- availability of water and sewage facilities in the area. In support of the same, reference was made by Delhi Development Authority to the letter dated 4th December, 2001 written by the appellants seeking permission to change the land use for the reason that the plot was very small and that there was no scope for establishing a nursing home on that plot. It was also submitted on behalf of Delhi Development Authority that the appellants were merely speculating on the property.

7. The learned single Judge considered the pleas raised and on appreciation thereof held that there was no reason why the appellant could not deposit the amount of Rs. 32,33,250/-. It was also held that commercial sites fetch much higher price as compared to sites with restricted user and, therefore, the demand made by Delhi Development Authority could not be said to be excessive. It was also held that price of land available for general commercial user cannot be equated with restricted user and, therefore, Delhi Development Authority was entitled to charge a price for permitting change of land use. It was further held that the offer of Delhi Development Authority for change of the land use could not be a decision in perpetuity and if the said amount was not deposited, Delhi Development Authority was well within its authority and jurisdiction to withdraw the offer for change of land use.

8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order the present appeal is filed, on which we have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The learned Single Judge has considered all the pros and cons of the arguments raised before him and has given cogent reasons for the conclusions arrived at. Although the land was auctioned for a particular purpose, namely, for establishing a nursing home, yet acceding to request of the appellants, change for the land use was allowed subject, however, to the condition of payment of necessary charges. The said charges were required to be deposited within the stipulated time frame but there was no response from the appellants for three long years. Consequent upon non-action on the part of the appellants, a decision was taken by the competent authority to cancel the earlier decision and withdraw the offer granting permission for change of land user. The said decision was taken after issuing a reminder to the appellants, again asking them to deposit the amount within a time frame, which was ignored. The action of the respondent/DDA cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal.

9. It was also contended before us by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the letter dated 28th April, 2005 was sent by the respondent/Delhi Development Authority to a wrong address. Reference was also made to the letter dated 20th April, 2005 written by the appellants to Delhi Development Authority stating that they were interested in conversion of land use and requested the Delhi Development Authority to inform the exact amount to the paid with interest and also sought for issuance of payment challan. On going through the records, we find that the competent authority withdrew the permission for conversion on 19th April, 2005, which was communicated to the appellants under letter dated 28th April, 2005. It appears that the letter dated 20th April, 2005, which was communicated to the appellants after the aforesaid decision was taken by the Delhi Development Authority withdrawing permission for conversion, on 19th April, 2005. The letter dated 28th April, 2005 only communicated the said decision to the appellants. The letter dated 28th April, 2005 came back unserved from the post office and, therefore, received back in the office of Delhi Development Authority on 17th May, 2005. In the meanwhile, Delhi Development Authority received appellants' letters dated 17th May, 2005 and 6th June, 2005 whereby the appellants requested for payment challan for depositing the conversion charges along with interest. In reply to the aforesaid letters of the appellants, Delhi Development Authority under letter dated 17th June, 2005 informed the appellants that the competent authority had already taken a decision for withdrawal/cancellation of the demand letter dated 8th March, 2002. Therefore, the aforesaid submission that the appellants were deprived of making payment of the amount in terms of demand of the respondents, is baseless in view of the fact that they were given more than three years time to deposit the amount even by issuing a reminder. After the decision was taken by the competent authority to cancel/withdraw the offer, for the first time , a letter was sent to the appellants on 19th April, 2005.

10. The decision of Delhi Development Authority cannot be said to be unreasonable. Learned Single Judge has examined this aspect and has rightly relied upon Tata Cellular v. Union of India reported in (1994) 6 SCC 651 wherein Wednesbury's principle of 'unreasonableness' is discussed. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. We hold that the writ petition was rightly rejected by the learned Single Judge. Delhi Development Authority was also justified, in the facts of this case, to cancel/withdraw permission granted for change of the land user. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that the decision that is rendered both by the learned Single Judge and by us would not preclude the appellants to file a fresh application, which when filed shall be dealt with by Delhi Development Authority in accordance with law.