Delhi High Court
Ideas Plus Ink Constructions (P) ... vs Delhi Development Authority And ... on 22 February, 2010
Author: G. S. Sistani
32
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 477/2010
Judgment dated 22.02.2010
IDEAS PLUS INK CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Rajiv Bansal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The facts of this case, as set out in the writ petition, are that the
DDA had advertised for auction of plots at Jasola, Pocket-II on
25.03.2008. Petitioner is stated to have taken part in the auction
for plot bearing No.132, Pocket-II, Jasola, Delhi measuring 150.14
sq. meters. The reserve price was fixed for the said plot at
Rs.3,25,18,200/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the bid
amount, amounting to Rs.90.0 lacs. On 25.4.2008, respondent -
DDA issued a demand notice to the petitioner for payment of the
balance 75% amount and due date fixed was 21.07.2008. By
letter dated 13.06.2008 petitioner requested the respondent for
extension of time for arranging of funds for making the balance
payment.
2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no.1 had
failed to honour the assurances and commitments made with
regard to providing 24 meters wide road for which DDA had
charged extra premium. The DDA failed to grant extension of
time for deposit of 75% premium. By letter dated 10.10.2008
petitioner again requested for time for making arrangement for
balance payment. The respondent considered the request of the
petitioner and granted extension of time for 180 days by letter
dated 13.12.2008 and time was extended upto 17.01.2009 for
depositing balance 75% of the premium of the plot along with the
interest.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner did not deposit the balance 75% of the
amount. The petitioner thereafter issued a legal notice dated
07.07.2009 to the DDA making a demand for refund of 25% of the
amount deposited by the petitioner with interest @ 18% per
annum.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent has not taken
any action for removing the encroachment on the road which is
yet to be constructed nor pocket-III, Jasola has been developed.
Subsequently by communication dated 30.10.2009 respondent
no.3 addressed a letter to the petitioner stating therein that since
the balance amount in respect of plot had not been made,
petitioner's case would be processed as per terms and conditions
of the auction and earnest money would be forfeited. By the
present petition, petitioner has made the following prayers:
"(i) A writ of Certiorari quashing the illegal notice
dated 30.10.2009 whereby the petitioner has been
threatened with forfeiture of the earnest money.
(ii) A Writ of Mandamus directing the DDA to
develop the village beyond pocket 2, Jasola as pocket
3, Jasola and for which purpose the entire village was
sealed on 8.1.2008.
(iii) A Writ of mandamus commanding the DDA to
honour the terms and conditions and to develop the
80 ft. (24 mtr) wide road between pocket 2 and pocket
3, Jasola.
(iv) A writ of certiorari quashing the action of the
DDA in not providing the 24 mtr. wide road in front of
the plots allotted to the petitioner, as shown in the
approved layout plan of the area, after demand and
receipt of the extra premium for the same, being
illegal, arbitrary, malafide, unjust, discriminatory and
in violation of the Rules and Regulations and the
terms and conditions of the auction and specifications
of the terms and conditions of the auction and
specifications of the plot and area and the principles
of equity, justice and good conscience.
(v) A writ of mandamus, commanding the DDA to
forthwith remove unauthorized construction and
encroachment from the area 24 mtrs. wide road in
Jasola, Pocket 2, complete the same and make it
available to the petitioner at the earliest and within a
time bound time.
(vi) A Writ of Mandamus directing the DDA to refund
the amount of Rs.90,00,000/- with interest thereon
from 25.3.2008."
5. Counsel for petitioner submits that on the one hand DDA has
failed to provide 24 meters wide road and on the other hand DDA
is demanding balance 75% of the amount.
6. Counsel for the DDA has entered appearance and has vehemently
opposed this petition on the ground that the plot in question was
auctioned by the DDA on as is where is basis. He further submits
that there is no proposal on behalf of the DDA to reduce the width
of the road or not to lay the road. He also submits that in a
connected writ petition No.4426/2008 this Court had passed the
following order:
"O R D E R
% 08.12.2009
1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present
petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.
The grievance of the petitioner as set out in the
petition is that respondent - DDA is contemplating to
shorten the width of the road from 24 meters in front
of the plots allotted to the petitioner as shown in the
approved layout plan of the area, although the DDA
has received extra premium for the same. Even
otherwise, it is contended that the act of shortening
the width of the road is in violation of the rules and
regulations and the terms and conditions of the
auction and specifications of plots. Petitioner also
seeks a direction for removal of unauthorized
construction and encroachment from the area 24
meters wide road in Jasola, Pocket-2, Delhi.
2. Counsel for respondent -DDA on instructions submits
that there is no proposal of the DDA to reduce the
width of the road, subject matter of this writ petition.
3. Counsel for respondent -DDA, however, submits that a
portion of the area part of Khasra No.268 min has
been acquired but physical possession of the same
has not been handed over to the DDA by the LAC and
further part of Khasra No.272 min (200 sq. yds.) which
is also subject matter of the acquisition, physical
possession of the same has also not been handed over
to the DDA. In absence of these areas having been
handed over to the respondent -DDA, there is some
likelihood of the road being shorten on these points
alone.
4. In view of the stand taken by counsel for respondent -
DDA, no further orders are required to be passed. DDA
shall be bound by the statement made by their
counsel in court today.
CM NO.7062/2009.
5. Dismissed, as infructuous."
7. Counsel for the DDA further submits that present petition is a
gross abuse of the process of the court. It is submitted that the
petitioner has failed to make the balance payment and the
earnest money deposited stands forfeited. He submits that by
letter dated 13.06.2008, petitioner had sought extension of time
for making the payment only on the ground that they were in the
process of arranging funds. The request was rejected by the DDA
on 17.07.2008 on the ground that no genuine reason for extension
of time was mentioned in the letter. By a subsequent letter dated
10.10.2008 petitioner again sought extension of time for making
payment on the ground that due to current market situation they
were unable to arrange funds to make the balance payment.
Three months extension was sought on the ground that petitioner
was in the process of making arrangement. DDA acceded to the
request of the petitioner and granted extension of 180 days,
subject to payment of 15% interest per annum. Despite the
extension granted, the petitioner did not make the payment.
Consequent thereto, as per the terms and conditions of the
auction, the respondent has forfeited the earnest money.
8. I have heard counsel for the parties. Great emphasis has been
laid by counsel for the petitioner that despite the extra premium
paid, the respondent has not laid 24 meters road for which the
DDA should be asked to give an undertaking. Counsel has also
sought a direction during the course of hearing to the DDA to
grant extension of time.
9. The basic facts are not in dispute. Petitioner participated in the
auction conducted by the DDA on 25.3.2008. Reserve price of the
plot was fixed at Rs.3,25,18,200/-. Petitioner deposited Rs.90.0
lakhs being 25% of the bid amount. The balance 75% was to be
deposited by the petitioner by 21.07.2008. Petitioner sought
extension of time to make the payment vide letter dated
13.6.2008, which was rejected by the DDA as there was no ground
mentioned in the letter for extension of time. Petitioner again
requested DDA for extension of time to make the payment vide
letter dated 10.10.2008 on the ground that due to current market
situation they were unable to arrange funds to make the balance
payment. Three months extension was sought on the ground that
petitioner was in the process of making arrangement. DDA
acceded to the request of the petitioner and granted extension of
180 days, subject to payment of 15% interest per annum. Despite
the extension granted, the petitioner did not make the payment.
In both the letters seeking extension of time petitioner did not
raise the ground that 24 mt. wide road was not being developed
by DDA nor any ground was raised with regard to unauthorized
construction. Grounds sought to be raised in the present petition
by the petitioner herein is an afterthought. In a connected writ
petition, DDA has already given an undertaking to this court that
there is no proposal of DDA to reduce the width of the road. Order
passed in WP(C)No.4426/2008 has been extracted above. During
the course of hearing of this petition, counsel for DDA had
reiterated the statement made in the earlier writ petition
[WP(C)No.4426/2008] that there is no proposal to delete the road
from the lay out plan.
10. The terms of payment are a matter of contract between the
petitioner and the DDA. Terms of a contract cannot be varied or
altered by this Court. Taking into consideration the stand of the
DDA that the earnest money deposited by the petitioner stands
forfeited due to non-payment despite extension being granted by
DDA, present petition is dismissed.
11. Counsel for petitioner, at this stage, submits that petitioner wishes
to make a representation to the DDA for extension of time for
making the payment. In case any representation is made by the
petitioner, DDA shall consider the same in accordance with law.
CM.No.997/2010 (STAY)
12. In view of order passed in the writ petition, application stands
disposed of.
G.S. SISTANI, J.
February 22, 2010
'ssn'
