VIKRAMADITYA BHARTIA Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition impugns the demand, contained in the letter dated 1st October, 2010, of Rs. 13,00,286/ - of the Respondent DDA on the Petitioner, on account of misuse charges and as a pre -condition for conversion of the leasehold rights in land underneath property No. A -94, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase -II, New Delhi into freehold. The Petitioner claims to have paid the said amount to the Respondent DDA under protest and seeks a mandamus to the Respondent DDA to refund the said amount to the Petitioner along with interest @6% per annum.

(2.) IT has at the outset been enquired from the senior counsel for the Petitioner as to how, the challenge to the demand can be entertained at this stage when the Petitioner has already complied with the demand and on the basis of the said compliance made the Respondent DDA convert the leasehold rights in the land into freehold. It has been enquired, whether the Petitioner after having made the Respondent DDA alter its position, is entitled to challenge the demand; challenge if any desired by the Petitioner to the said demand ought to have been made before complying with the said demand and if the Petitioner during the said challenge was desirous of having the leasehold rights converted into freehold, could have obtained the permission from the Court for making the payment without prejudice to his rights and contentions and subject to the final outcome of the petition. The Court could have then considered whether the Respondent DDA could be directed to so change its position. However the Petitioner having unequivocally led the Respondent DDA into believing that the Petitioner was agreeable to the said demand, it appears, cannot now be heard to challenge the same.

(3.) THE Petitioner has preferred this remedy of equity jurisdiction of this Court. This Court in exercise of equity jurisdiction would balance equity qua both the parties and not qua the Petitioner alone. The Petitioner having not shown to have notified the Respondent DDA of its objection if any to the demand of Rs. 13,00,286/ -,the Respondent DDA cannot be said to have agreed to convert the leasehold rights into freehold with knowledge of the said protest of the Petitioner or with knowledge of the pending claim of the Petitioner for refund of the said amount. The Respondent DDA has irreversibly changed its position and it will be inequitable to, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, direct the Respondent DDA to refund the said amount.