Dayawati vs D.D.A. & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 4576 Del

17
$~
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      CM No. 10619/2008 in W.P.(C) 3884/2007

       DAYAWATI                                ..... Petitioner
                              Through:    Mr. Rishi Dewan, Adv.

                     versus


       D.D.A. & ANR                           ..... Respondents
                              Through:    Ms. R.Veena, Adv. for Mr.Rajiv Bansal,
                                          Adv. for DDA.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
            ORDER

% 28.09.2010

1. By the judgment dated 5th March, 2008 DDA was directed to calculate unearned increase as per the land rate prevailing on 24th June, 1996 i.e. the date on which the applicant had purchased the property. It was directed that the applicant will pay simple interest @ 7% per annum for the period after 1st November, 2001 till payment was made to the DDA.

2. The applicant is a subsequent purchaser and the original lease allottee was Ms. Uma Kapoor. The applicant had purchased the said property on the basis of power of attorney, agreement to sell etc. Taking advantage of regularization scheme framed by DDA, applicant had applied for regularization and conversion from leasehold to free hold on 3rd September, 1998. Later on it transpired that there was dispute between the DDA and original allottee, Ms.Uma Kapoor, whether the sub lease deed of the plot should be executed in her name only or in joint names with her former husband. It was the case of DDA that they had never handed over possession of the said plot to Ms. Uma Kapoor in view of the said dispute.

3. By the present application, the applicant disputes the unearned increase computed by the DDA as per the rate prevailing on 24th June, 1996. It has been stated that Yamuna Vihar is in east zone and DDA has wrongly taken the rates mentioned in the circular dated 24th June, 1992 for computing the unearned increase.

4. DDA in their latest affidavit filed on 23rd September, 2010 have clarified that they have followed the circular dated 24th June, 1992 issued by Land and Building Department of the Government of Delhi under which Yamuna Vihar was shown in North Zone for computing the unearned increase. However, subsequently another circular dated 18th July, 2002 was issued by Commissioner (Land Disposal) DDA in which Yamuna Vihar, where the property located, has been shown in East Zone. It is thus clear from the stand of the DDA as the cut off date to compute unearned increase was 24th July, 1996, DDA have applied the circular dated 24th June, 1992 which was the relevant circular prevailing on the said date. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the applicant that the unearned increased has not been correctly computed by applying the circular dated 24th July, 1992.

5. Applicant by her letter dated 10th April, 2008 wrote to the DDA informing that she had deposited Rs.20,000/- towards maintenance and DDA was requested to compute the demand in terms of order dated 5th March, 2008. DDA by the letter dated 25th April, 2008 computed the demand and asked the applicant to pay Rs.6,70,435/-. In terms of judgment dated 5th March, 2008, the applicant had grace period of 60 days to pay the said amount without interest. The applicant paid Rs. 2,11,970/- on 8th May, 2008. DDA by the letter dated 12th June, 2008 informed the applicant to pay balance amount of Rs. 4,53,465/-. The applicant disputed the said amount and filed the present application for clarification. Notice was issued and the matter has remained pending for want of proper explanation by DDA. Now in view of the latest affidavit filed by the DDA on 23rd September, 2010, the demand made by the DDA has been upheld. In the meanwhile, the applicant has deposited the demand of Rs.4,53,465/- on 2nd August, 2010. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts it is directed that the applicant will pay interest on this balance amount of Rs.4,53,465/- with effect from 26th June, 2008 till 2nd August, 2010 @ 12% per annum. This order is being passed that there was some confusion/dispute on the payment of unearned increase and from the official notings that DDA itself was not very clear on what basis they had calculated the demand. These aspects were clarified by the DDA vide their affidavit dated 23rd September, 2010. It is clarified that the payment made on 2nd August, 2010 will be treated as payment towards the principal amount and will not be adjusted against the interest due. The interest payable will be computed by the applicant and will be deposited with the DDA within one month from today. In case of any short fall, DDA will communicate the short fall to the applicant within one month thereafter and the applicant will make payment within 15 days of such communication. On the payment of interest in terms of this order, DDA will process the application for conversion.

Application is disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2010 J