The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the method of computation of composition fee as detailed in previous cases and the exclusion of the period spent in obtaining exemption from the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 while reworking the composition fee.

1. Petitioner in this writ petition had initially challenged notice of 20th March, 1998 determining the Perpetual Lease Deed of 10th July, 1975 of Plot No.22, Block B, Riwari Line Industrial Area - Phase I, New Delhi, (henceforth referred to as subject plot) and Communication of respondent - DDA of 14th May, 1998 (Annexure P-16) refusing to restore the aforesaid Lease Deed in question.

2. While entertaining this writ petition, vide order of 10th June, 1998 petitioner was permitted to deposit Rs. 53 lacs with respondent - DDA towards compounding fee, etc. without prejudice to rights of both the sides. During pendency of the writ petition, respondent - DDA had restored the lease of subject plot vide its Communication of 14th May, 1999. Accordingly, the writ petition was amended by petitioner to seek refund of composition fee of Rs. 25,17,884/- and Rs. 3,36,071/-, restoration charges of Rs. 4,04,600/- and damages of Rs. 5,61,440/- along with refund of Rs. 53 lacs deposited by petitioner with respondent - DDA in terms of aforesaid interim order of 10th June, 1998.

3. According to respondent - DDA, possession of subject plot was handed over to petitioner on 2nd December, 1970 and thereafter, series of defaults on part of petitioner in respect of payments and fulfilling other conditions of allotment, resulted in cancellation of the subject plot. But before that, 'No Objection Certificate' for construction on the subject plot was granted to petitioner on 13th November, 1973 and Perpetual Lease Deed in respect of subject plot was executed in July, 1975. Extension of time upto March, 1977 to complete construction work on subject plot was granted to petitioner by respondent - DDA in December, 1976.

4. The chain of events precisely summed up by petitioner’s counsel are as under:-

“(a) Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 comes into force in February, 1976. Plot is covered under the Act. Permission is applied for.

(b) After three years, permission under Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 is granted in June, 1979.

(c) In the meanwhile the petitioner had applied for loan to Delhi Financial Corporation in 1971 and had kept it alive till 1978.

(d) After another two years (from July, 1979) in April, 1981 DDA agreed to grant extension and charged composition fee (Rs. 4,720.33), for it, however, instead of issuing extension, the DDA cancelled the Lease Deed.

(e) Another three and half years passed by, and then DDA restores the Lease Deed in December, 1985.

(f) At this stage the petitioner did not have the loan available from Delhi Financial Corporation, therefore, he needed more time to make arrangement.

(g) Another two years pass by and then DDA agreed to give extension that too only for two months (24.4.1987 to 30.6.1987), which was not sufficient time. However, they charged composition fee of Rs. 45,982.50 which was paid.

(h) Another two and half years pass by and then the DDA agrees to give extension, but gives it for an elapsed period upto 31.12.1989 vide letter dated 06.3.1990, which was of no use, however, they had charged composition fee of Rs. 75,862.50, which was paid.

(i) Another four years are wasted and then DDA agrees to grant extension but only for two months (12.01.1994 to 31.03.1994), for which they demanded composition fee of Rs. 12,07,968.70.

(j) Another one and half year is wasted and then the DDA agrees to give extension but only for one and half months (16.10.1995 to 06.12.1995), for which they demanded composition fee of Rs. 18,39,381/-. First the petitioner protested, however, then under pressure he agreed to pay.

(k) DDA wastes another two and half years, and inspite of petitioner's repeated requests, does not grant any reasonable extension but cancels the Lease Deed on 20.03.1998.

(l) Only when this Hon'ble Court's intervention is sought by the petitioner vide the present writ petition, the DDA grants petitioner a reasonable extension from 01.06.1999 to 30.09.1999 and he is finally able to complete the constr