Delhi High Court
Jitin Garg vs Delhi Development Authority on 10 November, 2021
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 10thNovember, 2021
+ LPA 419/2021
JITIN GARG ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Standing
Counsel for DDA.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGMENT
D.N. PATEL, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL)
CM APPL. 39266/2021 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
LPA 419/2021 & CM APPL. 39265/2021 (Stay)
1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgement and order
dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.10331/2020, the Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters
Patent Appeal.
2. Appellant had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a
direction to the Respondent/DDA to extend the time for depositing 75% of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice. The writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a short ground that the DDA by its
Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to all similarly placed
persons to make payments by 31.12.2020. The Circular was notified on the
DDA's website and despite the extension of time, Appellant did not take the
benefit and make payment and instead chose to file a writ petition on
13.11.2020.
3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present appeal are that Respondent/DDA
issued online advertisement for e-auction of some residential properties on
10.08.2019. Appellant deposited 5% EMD i.e. Rs.7,00,859/- on 06.09.2019
for auction of "Residential Plot No. 6, Pocket B-1, Sector-29, Rohini,
Delhi." On 11.09.2019, during the online bidding, Appellant emerged as a
highest bidder for the plot in question and the total value of the plot was
Rs.2,41,66,000/-.
5. Letter of Intent was issued by Delhi Development Authority in favour
of the Appellant on 04.12.2019. On 09.12.2019, Appellant deposited 25%
being Rs.53,40,759/- as demanded by the DDA. Thereafter, on Block dated
19.03.2020-28.03.2020, a Demand Letter was issued by the DDA for
balance payment of Rs.1,81,24,600/-.
6. According to the Appellant, the balance payment could not be made
as lockdown was imposed by the Government on 23.03.2020 on account of
Pandemic Covid-19. On 30.03.2020, Respondent issued a Public Notice for
extension of time for making payment under different Housing Schemes, but
there was no clarity of the notice related to the plot of the Appellant. As per
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
the Demand Letter, Appellant was required to pay the balance amount by
25.06.2020. However, Appellant was unable to arrange for the loan due to
the Pandemic and the last date under the Demand Letter expired.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that a limited relief was
sought by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge for grant of
extension of time so that the balance amount could be deposited as the
Appellant had already deposited 25% towards the cost of the plot. However,
the learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief, compelling the
Appellant to approach this Court. It is argued that the payment could not be
made within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter on account of
Pandemic Covid-19. For the same reason, even the loan could not be
arranged on time, which was subsequently approved by the Axis Bank.
However, despite this, neither the Respondent nor the learned Single Judge
granted further time for paying the balance 75%.
8. It is not disputed before us that the Appellant was unable to deposit
75% of the value of the plot for which the last date in the Demand Letter
was clearly 25.06.2020. The total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-, out
of which 25% (Rs.60,41,500/-) was already deposited by the Appellant
(original petitioner) on 10.12.2019, after receiving the Letter of Intent dated
04.12.2019.
9. Appellant had made some representations to the DDA seeking
extension of time but being unsuccessful in getting the relief, he preferred a
writ petition being W.P. (C) No.10331/2020 on 13.11.2020 seeking
extension of time to deposit remaining 75% of the value of the plot.
10. We find as a matter of record that Respondent vide communication
dated 02.12.2020 had extended the time, on its own volition, upto
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
31.12.2020, perhaps keeping in view the difficulties faced by the public due
to Pandemic Covid-19. It is an undisputed fact that the Appellant did not
avail the benefit of extension of time granted by the DDA and instead of
making payment during the extended time, chose to file a writ petition and
contest the case. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that Appellant should have taken the benefit
of the extended time as a vigilant claimant is expected to be aware of how to
pursue his or her claims promptly. Learned Single Judge has also observed
in the impugned order that the Circular dated 02.12.2020 granting time for
payment upto 31.12.2020, was duly notified on the DDA's website and
many persons have reaped the benefit of the extension. Once the
Circular was notified on the website, we fail to understand why
the Appellant did not seek the benefit of extension and deposit the balance
75%. Surely, the Appellant cannot at this stage be given the relief of
extension of time, once he has failed to avail the benefit given by DDA
itself.
11. In any event, the plot in question was auctioned by the DDA and it is
for the DDA to lay down the time schedules of the payments. This is really
in the realm of a contract between two contracting parties and it is not in the
domain of this Court to interfere and extend the time for depositing the
balance 75%. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the
Appellant that he was unable to arrange the loan for making the balance
payment. The advertisement for e-auction was issued on 10.08.2019 and the
online bidding was on 11.09.2019, when the Appellant emerged as a highest
bidder. At this stage, it was well known to the Appellant that he was
required to pay a sum of Rs.2,41,66,000/- towards the total value of the plot
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
and there was no reason for the Appellant not to have made arrangements to
make the payment. A subsequent event of Pandemic, in our view, will not
inure to the advantage of the Appellant, though even this was factored in by
the Respondent and extension of time was granted for nearly six months i.e.
from June, 2020 to 31.12.2020.
12. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the
learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. We are in full
agreement with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and for ready
reference, paragraphs 2, 3 & 4 of the impugned judgement are extracted
hereunder :-
"2. The petitioner was a successful bidder of
Residential Plot No. 6, Pocket B-1, Sector-29, Rohini,
Delhi. 5% Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.7,00,859/- had
been paid on 06.09.2019. A Letter of Intent was issued
on 04.12.2019 requiring another 25% to be paid within
7 days from date of its issuance. The said amount was
deposited within time. A demand letter dated
19/03/2020- 28/03/2020 was issued to the petitioner
vide letter no. F 11(109)/2019/LSB(R)469 seeking
remaining 75% of the amount to be paid by
25.06.2020. The said monies were not paid. After the
date got over, the petitioner sought issuance of fresh
demand letter from the DDA, so that he could arrange
for monies. The petitioner did nothing during the
period of payment and is seeking to make out a case
after the period got over.
3. The DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had
granted further time to similarly situated persons to
make the payments by 31.12.2020. The said circular
was notified on the DDA's website but was not sent to
the persons individually. While due notice of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
Circular is not challenged in the writ petition, it did
exist on DDA's website and many persons have reaped
the benefit of DDA's policy decision. The writ petition
itself was filed on 13.11.2020. A vigilant claimant/
litigant is expected to be well aware of the changes in
policy and to pursue his/her claims promptly. The
petitioner should have taken benefit of the extended
time. Surely, a bank loan could have been arranged to
pay the DDA. Simply, because the petitioner wrote a
letter to the DDA on 02.07.2020 seeking extension of
time, does not by itself grant locus to the petitioner for
issuance of a fresh demand letter or for extension of
time.
4. No case is made out. The petition is without
merit. Accordingly, it, along with pending applications,
stands dismissed."
13. Appellant ought to have known that if a plot was being auctioned and
he succeeded as being the highest bidder, he was bound to deposit not only
the initial 25% but also the balance 75% within the time period stipulated in
the Demand Letter. Not only did the Appellant not deposit the 75% within
the stipulated schedule but also failed to pay during the extended period
while many other similarly placed reaped the benefit of time extension.
Merely because the Appellant has approached this Court, cannot be a reason
enough to grant him further extension against the policy and decision of the
Respondent. If the Appellant chose to remain silent and not acted vigilantly
or promptly, despite the Circular of the DDA being on the website, he must
suffer for the laxity.
14. We find no infirmity or error in the impugned judgment.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
15. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed
alongwith the pending application.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JYOTI SINGH, J
NOVEMBER 10, 2021
sn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:15.11.2021
13:39:57
