Back
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi
Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr. - PETITIONER
Versus
Joint Action Committee,Allottee of SFS Flats & Ors. - RESPONDENT
Appeal (civil) 6668-6698 of 2000
AND CA NOS.6700-6732 OF 2000
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6666, 6667 & 6733 OF 2000
AND
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5881, 5867, 5882, 5876 and 5870 OF 2007
S.L.P. (C) NOS. 25385 OF 2005, 1003, 8033, 8262 & 13512 OF 2006
Decide On : 13/12/2007
Levy of 20% surcharge from the registrants of the South Delhi is justified in view of the definition of the disposal price as contained in Regulation 2(13) of the Delhi Development Authority (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 (for short, the Regulations ), in respect whereof a decision was taken by the Vice-Chairman on 22.08.1996. The said Regulations governing the field exclusively permits the Authority to decide and fix the price which would include surcharge being in the realm of contract, the relationship between the parties was clearly contractual; surcharge being a component of the price of the flat.
Fact of the Case:
Several writ petitions were filed at that stage questioning the legality and/or validity of the said purported resolutions. A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the said writ petitions in part quashing the policy of charging current cost and upholding the policy of charging 20% surcharge. Letters Patent Appeals were preferred thereagainst. A Division Bench of the High Court, having regard to conflict in decisions operating in the field referred the matter to a larger Bench.
Finding of the Court:
The Full Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned judgment modified the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in respect of current cost holding that the Authority had the requisite jurisdiction also in respect thereof. The validity of levy of 20% surcharge was also upheld.
Issues: (i) Whether the action of the Development Authority in levying 20% surcharge from the registrants of the South Delhi is justified ? (ii) Whether demand for payment of current cost as calculated by the Delhi Development Authority from the defaulter registrants could be said to be justified?
Ratio Decidendi: The meaning of the word cost and price has been settled by the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Sheelawant v. DDA which was upheld by the Supreme Court and reaffirmed in DDA v. Ashok Kumar Behl [(2002) 7 SCC 135]. The present case was different from the case of P.N. Verma v. Union of India [AIR 1985 (Delhi) 417].
Final Decision: The impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeals are allowed with costs. Counsel s fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/- in each case. Appeals filed by the DDA are dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
S.B. SINHA, J. -- Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6666, 6667, 6668-6698, 6799-6732 & 6733 of 2000 CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP (CIVIL) NOS. 25385 OF 2005, 1003, 8033 OF 2006 AND 13512 OF 2006 :
2. This batch of appeals arising out of a judgment and order dated 23.07.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, inter alia, in Writ Petitions No. 793 of 1993 as also a judgment and order dated 22.07.2005 passed by a Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 844 of 2003 etc. were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS :
3. Delhi Development Authority (for short, the Authority) has been constituted under the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (for short, the Act ). Indisputably, it develops different areas in the town of Delhi and constructs houses for all groups of people.
4. Principally it allocates flats under six different schemes viz : (i) Self Financing Scheme (SFS); (ii) Higher Income Group Scheme (HIG Scheme); (iii) Middle Income Group Scheme (MIG Scheme); (iv) Lower Income Group Scheme (LIG Scheme), (v) Janata Scheme; and (vi) Expandable Housing Scheme.
5. The flats constructed and allocated under the SFS Scheme are distinct and different from the other five schemes launched by the Authority. We shall advert to the said distinction a little later.
6. Suffice, however, it to say that not only costs of such schemes are calculated on different basis but the rights and stipulated liabilities thereunder are also different. Cost of flats vary from scheme to scheme. Under one of the schemes, applications were invited by the Authority from 22.12.1992 to 11.01.1993.
7. We may notice some of the provisions containing the terms and conditions on the basis whereof such an offer was made.
“5.10 the details of the flats and tentative cost etc. are available in Annexure-B. The cost of the flats mentioned therein is tentative and subject to revision on account of escalation in the value of land and cost of construction. Please note that there is a possibility of upward revision of the tentative cost.
5.11 Those who are successful for a ready built flat will be called upon to make the payment in lump sum within 60 days. Others who are successful for a flat where the work is already in progress will be asked to deposit within 30 days a specified percentage anything upto 90% of the estimated disposal price representing the expenditure already made and the amount required for construction of flats in next 3 to 4 months. Applicants successful for new allocations are asked to pay 25% the estimated cost of the flat by way of 1st instalment payable within 30 days. In each of the case 60 days time is further given to remit the amount with prescribed interest.
11.2 The demand-cum-allocation letters issued will indicate the prescribed dates by which the payments will be required to be made. The demand letter for final instalment for the flats in progress and new allocations will be issued separately and this may also include the possible increase in the cost of the flat. No separate letters will be issued for any of the subsequent instalments. It will be obligatory on the part of the allocatees to make the payments and deposit the requisite documents before the due dates indicated. In the event of default the allocation/allotment of the flat in the scheme will be liable to be cancelled. If submission of documents as demanded are delayed, maintenance charges will be leviable provided the delay in submission of documents is regularized.
12.2 If the allotment of flat is cancelled (either on the allottee s own request or due to the non- fulfilment of the terms and conditions of allocation by the allottee) after the expiry of 1, 2, 3 and 4 months from the date of issue of demand-cum- allocation letter,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
