PRABHAT CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, a partnership firm, prays for quashing the demand ofRs. 54,90,089.00 raised by letter dated 24/03/1992 issued by the AssistantCollector, Nazul, under Section 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, asextended to Delhi. The demand is admittedly towards arrears of ground rentand interest accrued thereon respecting plot of land bearing No. 6, NehruPlace, New Delhi, purchased by the petitioner on perpetual leasehold basis inan auction conducted on 5/08/1980 by the first respondent Delhi Development Authority. The bid of the petitioner in the sum of Rs. 5,18,00,000.00had been accepted by letter dated 21/08/1980 of the DDA. This premiumwas to be paid within a certain period for which, it appears, there is nodispute.

(2.) The terms of auction stipulated that the petitioner would have toerect a building in accordance with the plans prescribed within two years ofthe date of possession of the plot. the possession of the plot was handedover to the petitioner on 8/05/1981. In addition to the premium thepetitioner was to pay yearly ground rent. The ground pent was at the rate ofrupee one per annum for first two years allowed for. the purpose of construction and thereafter it was to be charged at the annual rate of 2-1/2% of theamount of premium. The petitioner construsted the building and sold flatsto various persons. On our direction the petitioner filed the purchaseagreement entered into between it and the purchasers of the flats. This agreement also provides that ground rent is payable to DDA at the rate of 2-1/2%per annum on the premium of the plot w.e.f. 8/05/1983. The agreement provides that the ground rent has to be paid by the buyers to the petitioner inproportion to the area of their respective flats and the share payable by eachbuyer shall be determined by the petitioner on the basis of the total saleable areain the building. This share is to be paid by the buyer on or before the firstApril of every year. The agreement-also stipulates that if the ground rent isrevised by the DDA it shall be payable by the buyers proportionately whenincreased/enhanced.

(3.) The petitioner contended that in the letter dated 21/08/1980the DDA while accepting the bid of the petitioner also stated that the yearlyrent would be payable in advance at the time of the execution of the leasedeed. Since the lease deed has not so far been executed, the petitioner says itis not bound to pay any ground rent. This to our mind is misreading of theletter. We have set out the terms of, the auction. It is not that petitionerhas not paid any ground rent so far. He has done so without any protest.He is, however, in arrears. It. has also not been disputed that the petitionerin turn would have recovered-ground rent proportionately from various buyers.The petitioner has, however, not cared to file any such statement as to howmuch ground rent he has recovered from various buyers of the flats thoughhalf-heartedly it was contended by Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the buyers were not paying their shares of ground rent and thepetitioner had to file about 200 suits. There are no such particulars and weare unable to accept any such submission.