Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
In the matter of: Merta Investment Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
The Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7167 of 2021 & CM APPL. 22636 of 2021
Decided on : 24-05-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 12, 226 - State – Power of High court to issue writs - Writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, 1950, challenging impugned Order passed by Director (Old Scheme Branch), Delhi Development Authority (Respondent No.2 herein) wherein Petitioner’s request for allotment at 85% of his Bid was rejected and allotment was cancelled - Promotion of good faith and equity as well as to prevention of perpetration of a legal fraud are ideals that must be borne in mind by a Court of equity (Para 17).
Findings of Court :
Actions of DDA to arbitrarily return amount of Petitioner without any intimation, and then rejection of allotment of demised plot to Petitioner vide impugned Order is unconscionable and unacceptable and is against principle of equity and good conscience - It is pertinent to note that actions of DDA followed personal hearing that took place with an authorised representative of Petitioner wherein DDA allegedly assured Petitioner that a decision would be taken in their favour - Petitioner had also furnished a consent letter indicating their willingness to accept demised plot with a 15% rebate in cost as per accepted Bid Amount calculated on a pro-rata basis - DDA cannot now turn its back to Petitioner and solely rely upon bidder not conducting inspections with respect to demised plot - Good faith that has been reposed in DDA by Petitioner has been flouted time and again by way of arbitrary and unreasonable actions when Petitioner has been consistently following terms and conditions imposed by DDA - Reproachable conduct of DDA in dealing with Petitioner is not appreciated by this Court.
Result – Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging impugned Order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Director (Old Scheme Branch), Delhi Development Authority (Respondent No.2 herein) wherein the Petitioner’s request for allotment of Plot. No. 58, Pocket P, EPDP Colony, C.R. Park, New Delhi – 110019 (hereinafter, “the demised plot”) at 85% of the his Bid was rejected and allotment was cancelled.
2. The facts, in brief, leading up to the filing of the instant writ petition are as follows:
b) The demised plot was inspected by an architect hired by the Petitioner and it was found that the actual area of the same (106.55 sq. mtr.) was lesser than the area notified by the DDA (139.07 sq. mtr.). The Petitioner wrote to the DDA on 19.08.2019 requesting a verification of the dimensions of the demised plot and sought for a reduction in the value of the plot on a pro-rata basis. Instead of responding to the letter dated 19.08.2019, DDA issued a Letter of Intent dated 21.08.2019 stating that the bid of the Petitioner with respect to the demised plot had been accepted and that the Petitioner had been declared the Successful Bidder.
c) The Petitioner duly complied with the requirements stipulated in the Letter of Intent dated 21.08.2019, and deposited a sum of Rs. 3,40,28,949/-. However, the grievance as to the measurement of the demised plot was raised yet again as the variation in the same was found to be more than 10%. Despite the repeated requests, it is stated that the DDA issued an Allotment-cum-Demand Letter dated 07.10.2019 instead, requesting the Petitioner to pay the balance sum of Rs. 2,55,21,756/- within a period of 90 days.
d) It is stated that the Petitioner made repeated correspondences and was also under severe financial duress. The concerns of the Petitioner were also highlighted at a meeting held on 12.12.2019 held with the Vice Chairman of the DDA (Respondent No.1) and a letter dated 12.12.2019 was also submitted by the Petitioner seeking a revised Demand Letter. No response was received regarding the same, and on 01.01.2020, under protest, the Petitioner deposited the balance sum within the stipulated 90 days. A letter dated 01.01.2020 was also submitted to Respondent No.1 requesting for a refund of the excess payment that was to be calculated after revision of the value of the demised plot on a pro-rata basis.
e) On 18.02.2020, a meeting took place between the Petitioner and the Office of Respondent No.1 with regard to the refund of the excess payment as well as the execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed of the demised plot. It is stated that the Petitioner was informed and assured that only 10% of the Bid Amount with respect to the demised plot could be returned as per the internal policies of the DDA. It is stated that as the Petitioner was facing financial hardship, the Petitioner agreed to the refund of 10% of the Bid Amount and gave its written consent on 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-16, page No. 125 of the paperbook) to forego the excess premium paid. Yet again, repeated communications were made to the Respondents by the Petitioner seeking a refund of the excess payment as well as execution and registration of the Conveyance Deed of the demised plot.
f) It is stated that vide RTGS on 26.08.2020, DDA unilaterally transferred a sum of Rs. 3,40,28,949/- to the Bank Account of the Petitioner without any intimation, and written information regarding the same was made available to the Petitioner on 07.09.2020. The allotment of the demised plot, therefore, stood cancelled. In this regard, the Petit
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
