CHAMELI FARMS PVT LTD Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is allowed, subject to just exceptions. C.M. Appl. 3262/2012 (for condonation of delay) & 3263/2012 (for condonation of delay) For the reasons mentioned in the applications, C.M. Appl. 3262/2012 and C.M. Appl. 3263/2012 are allowed. LPA 143/2012, C.M. Appl. 3260/2012 (for stay)

(2.) The appellant had participated in a bid whereby the respondents had offered, for sale, through auction, three plots Plot Nos. 3, 8 and 9 at L.S.C., Sector-B, Pocket-VII, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. The appellant bid for Plot No.3 and the price offered for the plot was Rs. 1,40,01,000/-; the bid was opened on 30.12.1994. The appellant s bid was the highest; it was further accepted, subject to approval by the competent authority Vice Chairman, DDA. The latter, by his order dated 10.01.1995, rejected the offer. Consequently, the DDA refunded the Earnest Money deposited as a precondition for participation in the bid, i.e. Rs. 35,00,250/-. The appellant thereafter preferred a writ petition, before this Court, claiming that the rejection was arbitrary. Learned Single Judge, by the order dated 15.07.2004 in Writ Petition No. 4049/1995, held that the comparison made by the ViceChairman, DDA between the offer in respect of the other two plots, i.e. Plot Nos. 8 and 9 was not justified. The Court was of the view that the user indicated for the plot in question, i.e. No.3 was a restricted one i.e. it was open for use by banks whereas the user advertised for other plots was a wider one as commercial space. The DDA was directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders.

(3.) Consequent to the order of 15.07.2004, the DDA, after taking into consideration all the circumstances, issued a letter dated 15.02.2005 offering Plot No.3 to the appellant. In this, the appellant was given the choice of depositing the price fixed for the plot, i.e. Rs. 3,14,79,674/-. This amount was to be deposited within 90 days of receipt of this offer. The petitioner apparently did not deposit any amount and instead chose to question the allotment letter so far as it pertained to price-fixation, through yet another W.P. 5885/2005. After hearing parties, that writ petition was allowed in the following terms: