ANIS UR REHMAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed aggrieved by the non-action on the part of the respondent to hand over the possession of Shop No. 7 measuring five square metres situated at Convenient Shopping Centre, Sector-C, Pocket-9, Vasant Kunj, Delhi for which the petitioner gave its bid for Rs. 1,89,000.00 in the year 1989 which was duly accepted by the respondent and petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 47.250.00 then and there and the bid was duly confirmed. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed that if DDA is not in a position to hand over the shop measuring five square metres then the amount deposited by the petitioners with DDA be returned alongwith interest @ 24% p.a.

(2.) One of the main grievances of the petitioner is that at the time when the bid was accepted, the shop was described as general shop/vegetable shop having an area of five square metres. Same was shown in the Lay Out Plan and also detailed in the Bid Form. It is the case of the petitioner that even on the demand letter dated 12.10.1989 the area was shown as five square metres. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent had displayed the area of the said Shop No. 7 as 4.58 square metres and on further verification it was confirmed that the shop in question was 3.48 square metres.

(3.) The petitioner wrote to the respondent vide his letter dated 24.10.1989, inter aha, seeking modification/clarification that in the Site Plan the location of the shop has been shown in Pocket 8 instead of Pocket 9, Sector-C, Vasant Kunj and, therefore, same may be amended accordingly. In para 3 of the said letter, the petitioner again pointed out that he had made the highest bid for a shop measuring 5 square matres in the open auction held on 11.10.1989 whereas area of the shop at site is only as 3.48 square metres. No reply of the aforesaid letter was given by the DDA. Again, petitioner wrote and represented to the respondent but of no avail. A legal notice was also served by the petitioner on the respondent, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has suffered on account of allotment of small size shop in comparison to what was represented to him at the time of auction. However, no reply was received of the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner to the respondent. Fed up with the lethargy of respondent, the petitioner in July, 1998 wrote to the respondent that as the case has already been delayed and he has been writing to the respondent with no reply, he withdrew his objections and agreed to take shop in question even of smaller dimension. Instead of allotting the shop realising its mistake on the part of the Department, DDA by its letter of 6.2.1999 cancelled the allotment of the shop in question to the petitioner thereby forfeiting the earnest money on the ground that the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount of the shop within stipulated period.