P. N. NAG, J. (Oral)

( 1 ). THE short question for determination in this writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the sanctioning of the building plan and commencement of construction on payment of usual penalty in view of the Notification issued by the Delhi Development Authority, published on 26th March, 1982 (Annexure- P. IA ).

( 2 ). THE brief relevant facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner was granted a perpetual lease vide lease deed dated 18th November, 1970 by the President of India of a plot of land being the Industrial plot No. 91, Block NO. A, measuring 2420 sq. yards in the lay-out plan of Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-11, New Delhi, which was registered on 9th December, 1970. As per clause 4 (a) of the lease, the period for construction of the plot was two years from 3rd March, 1970. However, the period later on was admittedly extended upto 31st December, 1981 vide letter dated 21st September, 1981, Annexure-P. 1. However, it appears that the building was not completed by the petitioner, as according to him it was not humanly possible to construct this building upto 31st December, 1981. He applied for extension of period for completing the construction vide letter dated 3rd April, 1982, Annexure-P. II. This application, appears to have been nude in view of the Notification issued by the Delhi Development Authority on 26th March, 1982. The constrtuction of the plot could not be completed within the stipulated period and the Delhi Development Authority on 15th November, 1984,vide the impugned order Annexure-P. VI determined the lease and conveyed the termination of the lease to the petitioner and the petitioner was asked to handover the possession of the plot in question. It was further stated therein that in case he failed to hand over the possession of the plot, the possession of the plot will be treated as resumed.

( 3 ). Again the order of cancellation of the lease, the petitioner made representation dated 19th November, 1984 for restoration of the lease and the Delhi Development Authority wrote to the petitioner that. his request for restoration of lease in. respect of the plot in question can be acceded to subject to the payment of the following dues:- 1. Composition fee for belated construction upto 31. 12. 85. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rs. 65,579. 00 2. Restoration charges. . . . . . . Rs. 20,240. 00 3. Interest charges on belated payment of premium. . . . . . . . . Rs. 1,714. 00 Total:- Rs. 94,533. 00

( 4 ) IT appears that the petitioner. deposited an amount of Rs. 47,266. 50 with the Delhi Development Authority, as according to him he was only liable to pay the aforesaid amount in view of the Notification dated 26th March, 1982 and this amount is on account of usual composition charges. However, the Delhi Development Authority seriously disputed the amount which the petitioner was required to deposit. Thereafter, the petitioner thereafter deposited the balance amount to make up the deficiency i. e. Rs. 94,533. 00 , as demanded by the Delhi Development Authority vide letter dated 19th April, 1985, Annexure-P. VII, which was accepted by the Delhi Development Authority.

( 5 ). HOWEVER, during the pendency of the petition, it transpired that on 8th September, 1989, Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the Court that in order to avoid further litigation, the petitioner was prepared to pay even interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 94,533. 00 , as referred to in the letter dated 19th April, 1985, Annexure-P. VII. Inspite of the compliance by the petitioner to the terms of the letter dated 9th April, 1985, Annexure-P. VII, lease was not restored by the Delhi Development Authority. Therefore, the petitioner has sought for the quashing of the impugned order of cancellation of the lease dated 15th November, 1984, Annexure-P. VI.

( 6 ). The stand of the respondent in substance is that the application of the petitioner is no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document