DDA Vs. SHAKUNTLA DEVI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra -court appeal is preferred by the appellant -DDA questioning the validity of the orders dated 15th September, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition preferred by the petitioner on the very limited ground. In fact, as would be noted hereinafter the impugned order decides the controversy raised in the writ petition in favour of the DDA hererin still at the end certain direction of refund of the respondent is given and the appellant is aggrieved by those directions only. Refund of the premium paid by the respondent against the allotment of plot along with interest @ 15%. As we are concerned of the justness of these directions only, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail and the purpose would be served by stating the facts in capitulated form. The predecessor -in -interest of the respondent No. 1, Shri Radha Krishan, husband of the respondent No. 1 had purchased a plot bearing No. B -4/35, Safdarjung Development Area, New Delhi in a public auction held on 27.1.1964. He paid the full amount whereupon Lease Deed dated 20.12.1965 was executed in his favour. As per Clause II (3) of the Lease Deed, Shri Radha Krishan was required to carry out construction within a period of two years from 20.12.1965. Admittedly, he did not do so for number of years. Sometime in the year 1978, Shri Radha Krishan raised the issue about physical possession when DDA threatened to cancel the Lease Deed by issuing notice that Shri Radha Krishan had not carried out the construction. Be as it may, on the representation of Shri Radha Krishan, DDA agreed to extend the period of construction. However, even thereafter, construction was not carried out due to the reasons entirely attributed to the purchaser as some disputes had arisen in M/s. Army Brush Factory, a partnership firm of Shri Radha Krishan. In any case, in failure to carry out construction on the plot, show cause notice dated 14.3.1984 was issued and thereafter, cancellation order was issued on 16.2.1985. After the cancellation, the plot was re -auctioned to a third party on 29.5.1986 and Lease Deed was executed in favour of the said party on 15.7.1986 who got the plot converted into freehold and even constructed the same.

(2.) Much thereafter, Shri Radha Krishan filed Suit in November, 1987 for declaration that the cancellation of the plot was illegal and without jurisdiction. This suit was dismissed vide orders dated 29.4.1993 on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section 53(b)(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). No appeal was preferred against this judgment and the said judgment became final.

(3.) HOWEVER , after one and a half years, legal heirs of Shri Radha Krishan, viz., present respondent filed writ petition (out of which, the present appeal arises) seeking a declaration that the cancellation of the Lease Deed was illegal, he be compensated with the market price of the plot or in alternate, be given some other plot. This writ petition is dismissed, inter alia, observing as under: