Back
1998 Supreme(Del) 87
High Court Of Delhi
V.K.KHOSLA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil 839 of 1997
Decided On : 02/01/1998
ABHILESH VERMA, J.K.SINGHI, MADAN BHATIA, Ravinder Sethi
Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 — Restraint on transfer of property — Third party interest — Effect of — Failure to pay the bid amount by the auction purchaser — Resale of plot — Third party interest created — Interim injunction rightly, refused.
Delhi Development Act, 1956 - Section 22(3) — Directions by Government — Scope of — Effect on Statutory rules — The directions can not override Rules framed under the Act.
Held:
A perusal of the directions and guidelines, as issued in 1982 and 1991, clearly shows that these have not been issued by the Centra! Government or under the authority of the Central Government, as is required in terms of Section 22(3) of the Delhi Development Act. The said instructions are issued in the name of the Lt. Governor by the Dy. Director (Lease Administration) of Delhi Development Authority. Similarly, the instructions dated 1.5.1991 are also issued in the name of the LLGovemor by the Commissioner (Lands). These, thereforee, do not partake the character of the directions issued by the Central Government, which is normally done by a notification issued by the Ministry of Urban Development and Employment. Recourse, thereforee, cannot be had to Rule 45 of the Nazul Land Rules to advance the argument that the Rules are supplementary to the directions of the Central government and not in derogation thereof. The submission that these directions and instructions are statutory in nature and will hold the field even if they are in conflict with the provisions of Rule 29 of the Nazut Land Rules is devoid of merit.
As regards the guidelines not applying to the default cases, the language of the 1991 guidelines, does not exclude cases of default per se and there is nothing in the text of the guidelines to support the contention of the respondent that the guidelines exclude, default cases. However, in the instant case, there has, admittedly, been an amendment in Rule 29, whereby the proviso was added which prescribed the period of 180 days within which restoration could be grantedon payment of interest and other charges. Presumably, it is for this reason that the guidelines do not specifically provide for restoration of auction bid as was provided in the 1982 guidelines. In any case the respondents are correct in their submission that the Executive Instructions or Guidelines, which are not issued by the Centra! Government under Section 22(3) of the Delhi Development Act cannot over-ride the provisions of the Nazul Land Rules, which arc operative and binding, it would he seen that in the instant case also, extension for deposit was granted up to the maximum period of 180 days from the stipulated date of payment i.e. from 25.7.1994 to 24.1.1995.
Delhi Development (Disposal of Nazul Land) Rules, 1981 - Rule 45 — Directions by Government — Effect of — Directions contrary to Rules — Permissibility — The directions can not override Rules framed under the Act.
( 1 ) THE present revision petition is directed against the order dated 23. 8. 1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the order dated 11. 8. 1997, by which the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was dismissed.
( 2 ) THE main submission of the petitioner in this revision petition is that the respondent Delhi Development Authority has, in an arbitrary and illegal manner, denied the benefit of restoration of the plot to the petitioners in terms of the guidelines dated 1. 5. 1991.
( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the present revision petition may be briefly noted:
(I) Petitioner was a successful bidder in an auction for plot No. 62, Mandakini, new Delhi, held on 18. 5. 1994. Petitioner s bid for Rs. 51,00,000. 00 was accepted and a sum of Rs. 12. 75 lakhs (rupees twelve lakhs seventy thousand only) was deposited by the petitioner as earnest money. Petitioner, however, failed to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 38. 25 lakhs by the stipulated date, i. e. 25. 7. 1994, as per the demand notice sent on 26. 5. 1994. (ii) Petitioner vide his letter dated 25. 7. 1994, sought extension of time for payment of the balance amount. Respondent Delhi Development Authority acceded to the request for payment of the balance premium upto 24. 9. 1994, subject to payment of interest at the rate of 25% per annum on belated payment of the premium. (iii) Petitioner, again, vide letter dated 7. 9. 1994 sought extension of time for making the payment upto 24. 12. 1994, on the ground that payment to be received by the petitioners from their sources had been delayed. Respondent Delhi Development Authority again acceded to the request vide its letter of 22. 11. 1994 and extended the time for payment of the amount upto 24. 12. 1994, subject, of course, to payment of interest at the rate of 25% per annum. (iv) Petitioner again sought extension of time upto 24. 2. 1995 for making the payment. Extension of time, however, was granted by the respondent Delhi Development Authority only upto 24. 1. 1995. (v) Petitioner again addressed a representation dated 23. 1. 1995 to the respondent Delhi Development Authority as well as the Ministry of Urban Development where, for the first time, grievances with regard to the existence of a garbage bin and the building plans being sanctioned only for 2-1/2 storeys as against 3-1/2 storeys in neighbourhood were voiced. Petitioner submitted that it was willing to pay and deposit the balance payment subject to removal of the garbage bin as well as the building plans for construction upto 3-1/2 storeys being sanctioned. (vi) Respondent Delhi Development Authority vide its letter dated 24. 3. 1995, cancelled the auction bid/allotment and forfeited the earnest money deposited by the petitioner in accordance with Clause II (7) of the terms and conditions of the auction. (vii) Petitioner, thereafter, sent a representation against the cancellation order to the Union of India. Further representations were sent on 25. 5. 1995 to the Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development. Petitioner was informed by the respondent vide its letter dated 30. 8. 1995 that its representation dated 25. 5. 1995 for restoration of allotment, had been examined but could not be acceded to. This was followed by further representations made by the petitioner to the Minister of Urban Affairs and Employment, Union of India, for restoration of the allotment. (viii) Petitioners on 28. 11. 1996, filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The learned Civil Judge declined to grant the ex-parte injunction vide order dated 3. 12. 1996. (ix) Vide another communication dated 29. 11. 1996, which the petitioners desired to be treated as the requisite statutory notice, also expressed their willingness to pay the balance premium and penalty thereon in accordance with the policy and guidelines dated 20. 7. 1982 and 1. 5. 1991. (x) The plot in question was re-aucti
