Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3315
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
Major Gulshan Kumar (Retd.) - Petitioner
Versus
Delhi Development Authority - Respondent
W.P.(C) 11406 of 2015 and CM APPLs. 30060 of 2015, 26919 of 2016
Decided On : 18-04-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sunil Kumar Mund, with Mr. K.K. Malvaya and Mr. Amarnath Jaiwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.S. Dhir, Advocate for D.D.A.
The delay in the allotment of the shop constituted harassment of a common citizen by a public authority, violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation and constitutional right to own property. The court directed the respondent-DDA to allot the shop to the petitioner at the cost prevalent on the date of the bid and to pay 12% per annum simple interest to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of possession. The petitioner was also awarded costs.
Headnote:
Delay in Allotment of Shop - Property Rights - [Ex-Servicemen Tender, Delhi Development Authority Act] - The court considered the delay in the allotment of a shop to the petitioner, who was a successful tenderer and had paid the full consideration. The court found that the delay constituted harassment of a common citizen by a public authority, violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation and constitutional right to own property. The court directed the respondent-DDA to allot the shop to the petitioner at the cost prevalent on the date of the bid and to pay 12% per annum simple interest to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of possession. The petitioner was also awarded costs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was declared the highest bidder in an Ex-Servicemen Tender in 1996 and paid the entire amount for the shop. However, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) did not hand over possession of the shop to the petitioner for nearly twenty years. The petitioner sought a direction to the DDA to allot a shop of similar size that had been allotted to the petitioner in 1996 as well as to award compensation for the delay in allotting a shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in allotment constituted harassment of a common citizen by a public authority, violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation and constitutional right to own property. The court directed the respondent-DDA to allot the shop to the petitioner at the cost prevalent on the date of the bid and to pay 12% per annum simple interest to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of possession. The petitioner was also awarded costs.
Issues: The issues included the delay in the allotment of the shop, the petitioner's entitlement to an alternative shop, and the compensation for the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in allotment constituted harassment of a common citizen by a public authority, violating the petitioner's legitimate expectation and constitutional right to own property. The court directed the respondent-DDA to allot the shop to the petitioner at the cost prevalent on the date of the bid and to pay 12% per annum simple interest to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of possession. The petitioner was also awarded costs.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondent-DDA to allot the shop to the petitioner at the cost prevalent on the date of the bid and to pay 12% per annum simple interest to the petitioner from the date of deposit till the date of possession. The petitioner was also awarded costs. The respondent-DDA was at liberty to recover the costs and interest from its officials after holding an inquiry in accordance with the law.
Manmohan, J.
The issue
1. The issue that arises for consideration is as to what is the legal wrong that has been committed by respondent-DDA in not allotting a shop to a successful tenderer for nearly twenty years after receipt of entire consideration?
2. It is pertinent to mention that present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent-DDA to allot a shop of similar size that had been allotted to the petitioner in 1996 as well as to award compensation for the delay in allotting a shop.
Facts of the case
3. The admitted facts of the present case are that in 1996, the petitioner was declared the highest bidder in an Ex-Servicemen Tender, vide Tender Form No. 000085 dated 26th December, 1996 in respect of shop no.28, CSCII, Block-G, Preet Vihar, Delhi admeasuring 9.69 sq. mtr. In accordance with the Demand Notice dated 6th January, 1997, the petitioner paid the entire amount of Rs.3,06,453/- towards allotment of the said shop. However, respondent-DDA did not hand over possession of the shop to the petitioner for nearly ten years.
4. On 6th July, 2006, the petitioner vide letter informed the respondent- DDA that he had visited the Preet Vihar market and found that Shop No. 28 was non-existent as the said market had only twenty seven shops.
5. Consequently, respondent-DDA on 1st May, 2012 decided to allot an alternative shop to the petitioner. Accordingly, vide letter dated 25th May, 2012, respondent-DDA offered a list of vacant shops in East zone to the petitioner with an option to choose one of the three shops in the three markets.
6. However, without waiting for the petitioner's option, the respondent- DDA held a Mini draw on 12th February, 2013 wherein the petitioner was allotted shop bearing no.4, Ground Floor, LSC (CSC), Mayur Vihar, Pocket 4, Phase-IV, Delhi admeasuring 18.69 sq. mtrs.
7. The petitioner vide letter dated 8th May, 2013 requested the respondent-DDA to allot him a smaller shop, i.e., of a size that he had bid for. In fact, the petitioner sought allotment of Shop no.1 or 7, CSC, Chilla Dallupra or Shop no.16, CSC, Dilshad Garden, Block B, Scheme No.575.
8. But, the petitioner's request was declined and he was requested by respondent-DDA to accept the allotment of shop no.4, Ground Floor, LSC (CSC), Mayur Vihar, Pocket 4, Phase-I, Delhi admeasuring 18.69 sq. mtr.
9. On 13th February, 2015, the petitioner intimated that he was ready to accept the allotment of the Mayur Vihar shop provided the excess area approximately 9.69 sq. mtrs. was charged at 1995-96 rates instead of 2012- 2013.
10. But, the competent authority decided that for the area measuring 9.69 sq. mtrs. that had been already bid and allotted would be the rate prevalent in 1995-96 and for the remaining area (measuring 9 sq. mtr.), the prevalent rate of 2012-2013 would be charged.
11. The petitioner intimated to the respondent-DDA that as he had retired from the Indian Army, he was not in a position to pay for the excess area at the enhanced rate.
12. As once again there was a stalemate, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
13. During the pendency of the proceedings, the respondent-DDA on 11th December, 2015 offered certain alternative shops to the petitioner admeasuring between 8 and 11 sq. mtrs. in East Zone. However, the petitioner refused to accept the same on the ground that the shops offered were situated in an inferior area.
14. On 29th July, 2016, this Court directed the Commissioner (Land Disposal), DDA to consider the feasibility of dividing the shop which was allotted to the petitioner in 2013 into two parts and allocate the part admeasuring 9.69 sq. mtrs. to the petitioner. However, the said suggestion was not found feasible by the respondent-DDA.
15. Thereafter, the respondent-DDA offered a list of 16 shops to the petitioner to choose from. The petitioner opted for one of the 16 shops bearing no.23, Sector B, Pocket 7, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The petitioner also gave option for two other shops, which according t
