LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-59

TRILOK SINGH SAWHNEY Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On August 05, 2002
TRILOK SINGH SAWHNEY Appellant
V/S
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, petitioner seeks reimbursement of the amount of unearned increase, interest and excess compounding charges along with damages. He also seeks directions to the respondent not to interfere in the construction of the building till such time the construction has been allowed by the MCD and also stay of further proceedings before the learned MM, Patiala House. He also seeks quashing of the orders dated 22.6.1988, 26.11.1996 and 12.5.1997 passed by the respondent-DDA.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that one Mr. Kailash Chand Jain was the owner of plot No.D-924, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. He executed a Will dated 18th June 1981. In favour of the petitioner. Mr. Kailash Chand Jain had submitted building plans for raising a residential house over the said plot which were sanctioned by the respondent on 20.7.1981. However, before construction could be started, Mr. Kailash Chand Jain died on 2.12.1981 and thus the petitioner became the owner of the aforesaid property by virtue of the will dated 18th June 1981. The aforesaid plot was mutated in the name of the petitioner. Due to certain losses in business, petitioner could raise only the garage block over the said plot of land consisting of one living room, kitchen, bathroom, latrine, verandah, garage with requisite and proper walls etc. according to the sanctioned plan in 1983. Petitioner could not raise further construction due to riots in 1984. On 28.4.1988, petitioner applied to the respondent for extension of time for raising the construction and completion of the building. However, the respondent vide letter dated 22.6.1988 informed the petitioner that his mutation had been suspended and therefore extension as sought for could not be allowed. Petitioner protested vide letter dated 4.7.1988. A statutory notice dated 1.6.1989 was also sent to the respondent.

(3.) Since no action was taken by the respondent, petitioner filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court vide order dated 7th July 1995 while dismissing the suit of the petitioner on the ground of limitation held as under ; -