Delhi High Court
Rajinder Singh vs Dda & Anr on 30 September, 2013
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th September, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 1172/2013 & CM.APPL.2212/2013
RAJINDER SINGH
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Dushyant,
Advocates
Versus
DDA & ANR
..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar with Ms. Ritagya
Riti, Advocates for the DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G.P. MITTAL, J.(ORAL)
1. The Petitioner was a successful bidder in respect of allotment of a
residential plot No.69, Chowkandi, Delhi measuring 162 sq. mts. in an
auction held on 21.08.2002. His bid of `12,97,000/- was accepted by the
DDA. The earnest money of `3,24,250/-, representing 25% of the total
bid amount, was deposited with the DDA on the date of the auction itself.
The balance of `9,72,766/- was admittedly deposited by the Petitioner in
November, 2002 according to the terms of the auction and the allotment
of the plot was made to the Petitioner.
2. As per the terms of the allotment, the Petitioner was required to submit
four copies of the unsigned lease deed along with duly stamped perpetual
lease deed papers. According to the Petitioner, he did not receive the
lease deed papers and, therefore, the same could not be stamped from
Collector of Stamps and could not be submitted to the DDA. The
Petitioner avers that it was only on 22.03.2005 when the Petitioner
received a show cause notice issued by the DDA through one of his
neighbours that he came to know about the non-submission of lease deed
papers duly stamped. The reason for the same attributed by the Petitioner
is that he was temporarily working in Berlin(Germany) and, therefore, the
same could not be received by him. On 07.11.2005, the Petitioner paid a
sum of `87,406/- to the Collector of Stamps and deposited three copies of
the perpetual lease deed duly stamped with the DDA on 21.11.2005. The
Petitioner alleges that he did not hear anything further in the matter and
the Petitioner continued to work in Berlin.
3. Thereafter, when the Petitioner was in Delhi, he made a representation on
02.03.2012 to the DDA stating that in spite of making full payment and
submission of the duly stamped lease deed papers seven years ago, he had
not received the possession letter in respect of the plot. The Petitioner,
therefore, requested the DDA to issue the possession letter. The
Petitioner also gave his alternative address where his father and his
family members were residing, that is, C-8/247-B, Keshavpuram, Delhi-
110035. The Petitioner alleged that he did not receive any response from
the DDA. On the other hand, on 07.01.2013, a show cause notice was
received by the Petitioner to the effect that he had failed to submit the
lease papers and other documents. The Petitioner's grievance is that
simultaneously, a letter dated 08.01.2013 was received by the Petitioner
calling upon him to furnish the details of the accounts from where the bid
amount of `12,97,000/- and the stamp duty amount of `87,406/- were
deposited by him. He was further required to furnish a photocopy of the
passbook and the bank statement. The Petitioner says that a detailed
para-wise reply dated 13.01.2013 to the show cause notice was submitted
by him. Reply to the letter dated 08.01.2013 was also submitted by the
Petitioner on 29.01.2013, whereby he informed the DDA that the
payment of the auction money having been made in the year 2002 and the
accounts having been closed, it will not be possible for him to give the
details of the bank accounts from which the payment was made. The
Petitioner also informed that it was not permissible for the DDA to ask
for these details, that too after a period of eleven years and one month.
The Petitioner's grievance is that in spite of having made the payment
and completing all the formalities, neither the lease deed is being
executed nor the possession letter is being issued to the Petitioner.
4. The Petition is resisted by the DDA by way of filing a counter affidavit.
The payment of 25% earnest money and 75% balance bid amount within
the stipulated period is not disputed by the Respondent DDA. The
submission of lease deed papers duly stamped on 21.11.2005 is also not
disputed. It is also not disputed by the DDA that all the formalities have
since been completed by the Petitioner. The DDA's plea, however, is
that the stamped papers and lease deed was submitted after a delay of 02
years 11 months and 09 days and the other formalities and submission of
requisite documents were completed only after a period of 09 years and
20 days.
5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Asha N. Madnani v. DDA, 1997 I AD(Delhi)
385 submits that the terms as to payment of the allotment money are
mandatory and the terms with regard to deposit of the documents are only
directory and, therefore, the DDA cannot deny execution of the lease
deed as also delivery of the possession since all the formalities have been
completed by the Petitioner.
6. In para 10.1 and 10.2, the Division Bench held as under:
"10.1 Each allotment is part of a composite scheme. By default
in payment the working of the scheme is disturbed and the DDA
has to rearrange its financial affairs. An allottee defaulting in
payment must give way to an aspirant waiting for an allotment
and willing to make payment.
10.2 In case of a mere default in filing of the
documents(having no material bearing or eligibility or
qualification for allotment) and proof of payments within the
prescribed period the considerations are different. Even the
respondent-DDA is aware of the payment having been made. It
is merely a question of convenience that allottee is required to
furnish proof of payment so that collective information as to
payment is available at one place and the DDA is not required
to scan its records time and again in respect of each allottee.
Having made the payments-all and in time- it is primarily the
allottee who suffers by his failure to furnish the documents and
proof of payments. Execution of lease and delivery of
possession to the allottee would be delayed in spite of his
having parted with money and that flat lying ready for delivery
of possession. Situation may be different if third party interest
or any other similar factor has intervened which would render
it inequitable or impossible to accommodate the allottee on his
original allotment."
7. It is urged by the learned counsel for the DDA that in spite of several
reminders by the DDA, the formalities were not completed by the
Petitioner within reasonable time. However, the Petitioner has given a
reasonable explanation for the same, that is, he was temporarily working
in Berlin. Moreover, since the conditions with regard to deposit of
documents were not mandatory, the DDA cannot withhold the execution
of the lease deed and delivery of the possession to the Petitioner.
8. By a letter dated 07.01.2013, the Petitioner was directed to show cause
within 15 days as to why the allotment /bid of the plot no.69, measuring
162.00 sq. mtr. in Chowkhandi, Residential Scheme may not be
cancelled. While issuing notice of the writ petition on 22.02.2013, this
court had stayed the operation of the show cause notice. In view of the
above discussion, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the DDA to
deliver the possession of plot No.69, measuring 162.00 sq. mtr.,
Chowkhandi, Delhi within eight weeks to the Petitioner and to execute
the lease deed within four weeks thereafter.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10. Dasti to the counsel for the parties.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013
pst
