Kesho Lal Khullar Memorial ... vs D.D.A. & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 4634 Del

15
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      REVIEW PETITION NO. 463/2009 IN W.P.(C) 12516/2005


       KESHO LAL KHULLAR MEMORIAL SOC ..... Petitioner
                      Through Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with
                      Mr.Sudershan Rajan, Mr.N.P.Singh, advocates.

                     versus

       D.D.A. & ANR.                 ..... Respondents
                              Through Ms. Shobhna Takiar, advocate for DDA.
                              Mr. Ravi Datta, advocate for R-3.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

              ORDER

% 01.10.2010

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at considerable length on

this review application.

2. By letter dated 14th June, 2001, the applicant was provisionally allotted

land measuring 825 sq.mts. at C-8, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi on the terms and

conditions stipulated therein. Clauses 22 and 23 of the said letter read:-

"22. If the above terms and conditions are acceptable to you, the acceptance thereof with attested undertaking be sent to the undersigned along with the bank challan in favour of DDA for Rs.1769860/-, Rs.1726649/- (land premium) + Rs.43166/- (G.R.) + and documentation charges Rs.45/-) within 60 days from the date of issue of the allotment cum demand letter. The said amount can also be deposited in the bank counter situated in DDA's office complex and copy of the same may be sent to this office for having deposited the demand along with acceptance letter undertaking with in 60 days from the date of issue of demand cum allotment letter. Within 60 days of issue of demand cum allotment letter the allottee shall be require to make the entire payment. Thereafter, 18% interest shall be chargeable upto 6 months from the date of issue of the demand cum allotment letter.

23. In case the payment and acceptance letter with re-

REV.P.No.463/2009 Page 1 required undertaking is not received within the stipulated period as stated above, it will be presumed that you are not interested in the allotment of the land and the offer of allotment will stand withdrawn."

3. In accordance with the aforesaid Clauses, the applicant was to make

payment of Rs.17,69,860/- within 60 days. Clause 22 states that thereafter,

interest @18% shall be chargeable upto six months. The aforesaid clause also

stipulated that an acceptance letter undertaking should be filed within 60 days

after the issue of the demand-cum-allotment letter. No paper or document was

filed with the writ petition to show that any acceptance undertaking was filed

within 60 days from the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter.

4. In the meanwhile, the said land was considered for allotment in the

meeting of the Institution Allotment Committee held on 28 th August, 2001 and

was allotted to Mahavir Vaisya Samaj (hereinafter referred to as MVS, for short)

for construction of a dharamshala. The said meeting, as noticed, was held after

60 days the letter dated 14th June, 2001 was issued. After this meeting, allotment

letter was issued to MVS on 15th October, 2001.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that DDA had proceeded

with great haste and hurry. There would have been merit in the said contention in

case the applicant had expressed their desire to purchase the land or accepted the

said allotment or had taken steps by filing acceptance cum undertaking letter. On

the other hand, the applicant deposited Rs.2 lacs by way of a challan in the

designated bank of DDA on 26th December, 2001. However, no letter was written

to the DDA informing them of the deposit and or requesting for time etc. As per

REV.P.No.463/2009 Page 2 the writ petition, the applicant wrote the first letter on 23rd September, 2002 that

they were ready and willing to pay the amount in case the allotment was restored.

A reading of the said letter shows that the applicant was aware that the land in

question had been allotted to a third party.

6. The applicant thereafter wrote some letters to DDA but without response.

7. After about 3 years, the applicant filed W.P.(Civil) No. 7948/2005

questioning the action of DDA. This petition was disposed of on 5th May, 2005 on

the statement made by the counsel for the applicant that they wish to make a

representation to the DDA and Lt. Governor with regard to the allotment and

therefore they sought liberty to withdraw the petition. Liberty was granted. It was

observed that in case representation was made, the authority shall consider the

same expeditiously and in any case not later than six weeks from the date of the

receipt. The applicant thereafter made a representation but the same was rejected

vide letter dated 10th June, 2005. This letter dated 10th June, 2005 became the

subject matter of challenge in the Writ Petition which has been disposed of vide

the order under review dated 21st October, 2009.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant came to

know about the cancellation of the allotment only after the letter dated 10 th June,

2005 was written by DDA and they were informed that the allotment was

formally cancelled on 26th March, 2002. There is no merit in the said contention.

As noticed above, the applicant in their letter dated 23 rd September, 2002 written

to the DDA had mentioned that the land allotted to them had been allotted to

another agency. This shows their knowledge and is a clear admission that the

REV.P.No.463/2009 Page 3 applicant were aware that their allotment had been cancelled and thereafter

allotment had been made to a third party. The applicant had asked for restoration

of allotment. Restoration is required, if allotment is cancelled.

8. The applicant has highlighted the conduct of the DDA in making the

allotment to MVS-respondent no.3 in haste and hurry. The said contention would

have merited some consideration in case the applicant had conducted themselves

bonafidely and had shown their intention and desire to make the payment. The

facts noted above show that the applicant did not comply with Clause 22 of the

allotment letter dated 14th June, 2001. No acceptance-cum-undertaking letter

was furnished within 60 days. A small amount of Rs.2 lacs against the total

demand amount of Rs.17,69,860/- was deposited in the bank account of DDA on

26th December, 2001 and no further payment whatsoever was made. The first

letter written by the applicant to the DDA, as per the writ petition, was dated 23rd

September, 2002. No earlier letter of the applicant has been placed on record in

the writ petition. Thereafter, the applicant approached the court after delay of

three years in 2005. The writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to make a

representation. The representation made stand rejected. In these circumstances,

the claim of the applicant cannot be accepted.

Application for review has no merit and is dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

       OCTOBER 01, 2010
       P/NA




REV.P.No.463/2009                                                            Page 4