The main legal point established in the judgment is that a vigilant claimant is expected to be aware of policy changes and pursue claims promptly, and failure to avail the benefit of extended time granted by the authority cannot be a reason to grant further extension against the policy and decision of the authority.

Headnote:
Extension of Time - Auction of Residential Plot - Circular dated 02.12.2020 - [W.P.(C) No.10331/2020] - [Circular dated 02.12.2020] - The court discussed the Circular dated 02.12.2020 issued by the DDA, granting further time for making payments by 31.12.2020. The court highlighted that the Circular was duly notified on the DDAs website and observed that many persons reaped the benefit of the extension. The court emphasized that a vigilant claimant is expected to be aware of policy changes and pursue claims promptly. The court concluded that the appellant should have taken benefit of the extended time and that the appellant's failure to do so cannot be a reason to grant further extension against the policy and decision of the Respondent.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant emerged as the highest bidder for a residential plot in an e-auction conducted by the DDA. The appellant sought a direction to the DDA to extend the time for depositing 75% of the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the DDA had already granted further time to all similarly placed persons to make payments by 31.12.2020.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appellant failed to avail the benefit of the extended time granted by the DDA and chose to file a writ petition instead. The court held that the appellant should have been aware of the policy changes and pursued the claim promptly. The court concluded that the appellant's failure to take benefit of the extended time cannot be a reason to grant further extension against the policy and decision of the Respondent.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of time for depositing the balance amount for the residential plot, considering the circumstances of the case and the Circular dated 02.12.2020 issued by the DDA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellant's failure to avail the benefit of the extended time granted by the DDA, the expectation of a vigilant claimant to be aware of policy changes and pursue claims promptly, and the court's reluctance to grant further extension against the policy and decision of the Respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge and finding no merit in the appellant's claim for further extension of time.

JUDGMENT

D.N. Patel, CJ. - CM APPL. 39266/2021 (Exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

LPA 419/2021 & CM APPL. 39265/2021 (Stay)

1. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgement and order dated 20.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10331/2020, the Original Petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Appellant had approached the learned Single Judge seeking a direction to the Respondent/DDA to extend the time for depositing 75% of the balance amount and issue a fresh Demand Notice. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on a short ground that the DDA by its Circular dated 02.12.2020 had granted further time to all similarly placed persons to make payments by 31.12.2020. The Circular was notified on the DDAs website and despite the extension of time, Appellant did not take the benefit and make payment and instead chose to file a writ petition on 13.11.2020.

3. We have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have looked into the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Brief facts relevant to the present appeal are that Respondent/DDA issued online advertisement for e-auction of some residential properties on 10.08.2019. Appellant deposited 5% EMD i.e. Rs.7,00,859/- on 06.09.2019 for auction of "Residential Plot No. 6, Pocket B-1, Sector-29, Rohini, Delhi." On 11.09.2019, during the online bidding, Appellant emerged as a highest bidder for the plot in question and the total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-.

5. Letter of Intent was issued by Delhi Development Authority in favour of the Appellant on 04.12.2019. On 09.12.2019, Appellant deposited 25% being Rs.53,40,759/- as demanded by the DDA. Thereafter, on Block dated 19.03.2020-28.03.2020, a Demand Letter was issued by the DDA for balance payment of Rs.1,81,24,600/-.

6. According to the Appellant, the balance payment could not be made as lockdown was imposed by the Government on 23.03.2020 on account of Pandemic Covid-19. On 30.03.2020, Respondent issued a Public Notice for extension of time for making payment under different Housing Schemes, but there was no clarity of the notice related to the plot of the Appellant. As per the Demand Letter, Appellant was required to pay the balance amount by 25.06.2020. However, Appellant was unable to arrange for the loan due to the Pandemic and the last date under the Demand Letter expired.

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that a limited relief was sought by the Appellant before the learned Single Judge for grant of extension of time so that the balance amount could be deposited as the Appellant had already deposited 25% towards the cost of the plot. However, the learned Single Judge declined to grant the relief, compelling the Appellant to approach this Court. It is argued that the payment could not be made within the time stipulated in the Demand Letter on account of Pandemic Covid-19. For the same reason, even the loan could not be arranged on time, which was subsequently approved by the Axis Bank. However, despite this, neither the Respondent nor the learned Single Judge granted further time for paying the balance 75%.

8. It is not disputed before us that the Appellant was unable to deposit 75% of the value of the plot for which the last date in the Demand Letter was clearly 25.06.2020. The total value of the plot was Rs.2,41,66,000/-, out of which 25% (Rs.60,41,500/-) was already deposited by the Appellant (original petitioner) on 10.12.2019, after receiving the Letter of Intent dated 04.12.2019.

9. Appellant had made some representations to the DDA seeking extension of time but being unsuccessful in getting the relief, he preferred a writ petition being W.P. (C) No.10331/2020 on 13.11.2020 seeking extension of time to deposit remaining 75% of the value of the plot.

10. We find as a matter of record that Respondent vide communication dated 02.12.2020 had extended the time, on its own volitio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document