SAROJ GUPTA Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL) :

(2.) THE petitioners husband of appellant no.1 alongwith petitioners 2 and 3 had purchased an industrial plot in the Narina Industrial Area, Phase I, Delhi a perpetual lease dated 25.4.1974 was prepared by the DDA. Since under the lease deed the construction was to be carried within specified period, the petitioners had been requested the respondent for extension of time for raising construction on the aforesaid plot of land and respondents had been granted demand of composition fee. In the meantime, the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act came into operation and the petitioners applied for exemption under the said Act. I am informed that since the Act as seems to be exists, the application under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act has no reliance on the present case. On or about 3.12.1983, respondent no.1 terminated the lease of the petitioners because of not constructing the building thereon in terms of the lease deed and directed the petitioner to hand over the possession. In a writ petition filed passed the petitioners, an order passed on 27.2.1996 whereby the Court was informed that the Lt.Governor had on 23.2.1996, passed an order directing restoration of the lease and the charges and correction therewith were to be intimated to the petitioners. A demand was also raised by the respondents on 8.4.1996, calling upon the petitioners to pay a sum of more than Rs.5 lakhs towards composition fee restoration charges, ground rent and interest on belated payment. This amount stated to have been paid by the petitioners. On 10.1.2001, the petitioners wrote another letter to the respondents for extension of time to complete the scheduled premise. On receipt of this letter respondents on 22.2.2001, issued a provisional demand calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of more than Rs.1 crore and 29 lakhs as composition fee. It was on receipt of this demand that the petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the same on the ground as contained in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to my notice the judgment dated 18.2.2003 passed by this Court in CWP No.1327/200 wherein the Court has held that the composition fee already having been paid upto the period 30.12.1983 and the lease of the property having been determined thereafter. THE petitioners could not raise any construction on the plot of land till such time the lease was restored. It was admitted that the lease was restored only in April, 1996 and mutation of the property having been done in favour of the petitioners on 17.10.2000. THE respondents cannot claim composition fee for a period prior to the said date. From a perusal of the impugned demand, it appears that the DDA is claiming composition fee not at the rate which are specified by them on the guidelines for calculation of composition fee but what they are doing is that they are adding the rates of all the earlier period and are calculating any composition fee at a cumulative rate for the last year. Similarly for the earlier years cumulative years has taken as charges for composition fee. This demand raised by the respondents not only is wholly exert and unreasonable but in my opinion, no reasonable officer in the department can arrive at such a demand. Even if the petitioners are liable to pay composition fee it may be only in accordance with lease for the year in question and not the cumulative rat has been done by the impugned order. Be that as it may since this Court in CWP No.1327/2000 has already held that the respondents are not entitled to claim demand in the manner they are doing, in my opinion, it would be appropriate that the matter is remanded to the respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter after calculating the demand in accordance with this judgment and the judgment of the Court in CWP NO.1327/2000.