DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. INDERJIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment, dated 30/08/1996, whereby the learned Single Judge has directed the Delhi Development Authority (for short the 'DDA'), the appellant before us, to allot to the respondent herein an industrial plot bearing No. B-14, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi, measuring 1200 sq. yards at a pre-determined rate of Rs. 160.00 per sq. mtr. In the writ petition the respondent had assailed a letter issued by the DDA, informing him that his application for allotment of industrial plot had been rejected on account of his failure to deposit 30% of the premium amount in terms of the advertisement 'issued by the DDA in the newspaper on 29/09/1976. A brief reference to the facts of the case would be necessary to appreciate the controversy involved.

(2.) With a view to provide an opportunity to the industrialists to shift their industries, functioning in the non-conforming areas or the areas which were under acquisition for various public purposes, to conforming areas, the DDA issued as advertisement on 20/02/1976 asking the industrialists to apply for land in the conforming areas which had been developed by the DDA in different localities of Delhi according to the provisions of the Master Plan. The applicants were advised to apply in the prescribed form. The advertisement also informed the applicants that they were required to deposit earnest money on the basis of size of the plot applied by them for allotment. Price of the allotted land was to be deposited in four quarterly instalments.

(3.) The last date for receipt of applications was 31/03/1976, which was later on extended to 15/04/1976 vide another advertisement issued in the newspaper on 19/03/1976. The respondent submitted his application on 15/04/1976 for allotment of a plot measuring 840 sq. mtr. along with proof of deposit of earnest money. As the number of applicants was very large and the plots were few, it appears, the DDA decided that the applicants should be asked to deposit 30% of the premium amount of land as a condition precedent for consideration of their applications. As advertisement to this effect was issued on 29/09/1976 in the Hindustan Times. The applicants were required to deposit the said amount by 31/10/1976. This notice also specified the rates to be charged for different types of developed plots. It is not in dispute that the respondent had applied and deposited the earnest money in terms of the advertisement issued in March 1976. He, however, failed to pay 30% of the total premium of land, which he was required to deposit in terms of the advertisement issued in September 1976. It is a common ground that respondent's application was rejected because he had failed to deposit 30% of the premium in terms of the second advertisement. Intimation in this behalf was sent to the respondent vide DDA's impugned letter dated 6/08/1981 along with refund of the earnest money. As noted above, it was this communication which was impugned in the writ petition, mainly on the ground that the third advertisement published in the newspaper in September 1976 was not noticed by the applicant and it was incumbent upon the DDA to inform him by means of an individual notice about any change in the original terms and conditions of allotment and since the DDA had failed to do so, it could not reject respondent's application on the stated ground.