ASHOK KUMAR KANOJIA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners participated in an auction held by respondent No. 1 on 26.11.1991 and were the highest bidders for plot No. 8, Pocket IV, Block C, Sector 11, Rohini, Delhi and deposited the initial 25% amount at the time of fall of hammer amounting to Rs. 4,50,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 18 lacs. The petitioners further deposited a sum of Rs. 5 lacs on 9.1.1992, but did not deposit the balance amount and requested for extension of time for making the said balance payment. The time period was extended upto 2.4.1992. On 18.3.1992, the petitioners further deposited a sum of Rs. 4,54,225/. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 14,04,225/- out of the total amount of Rs. 18 lacs was deposited within the time being 75% of the bid amount. The petitioner has stated that thereafter the mother of the petitioner fell sick and due to her ailment as well as d isputes within the family, the balance 25% amount was not deposited. No action was also taken by the respondent No. 1 during this period of time and a show-cause notice was finally issued on 12.10.1993 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the said allotment of plot be not cancelled, as a consequence of the petitioners' failure to deposit balance 25% of the amount being Rs. 3,95,775/-. The petitioners immediately deposited this balance amount along with interest of Rs. 4,225/- totaling to Rs. 4 lacs. The petitioner also on the same date replied to the said show-cause notice and requested them in view of the fact that the full amount has been deposited with interest, no further action should be taken for cancellation of the plot.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 thereafter failed to take any action and it is only on 6.6.1997 after lapse of three and a half years, the decision was taken to cancel the allotment in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners approached this Court aggrieved by the said decision. On 27.1.2000, Counsel for respondent No. 1 informed this Court that DDA had no jurisdiction to condone the delay of payment for instalments beyond a period of 180 days and a reference has been made to the Central Government by the respondent No. 1 since the Central Government, respondent No. 2 was the competent authority. It was stated that such a reference would be made and the matter was thereafter adjourned. The decision was taken by the respondent No. 2 vide intimation dated 16.10.2000 rejecting the request of the petitioners and this was informed to the Court on 13.3.2001 whereupon the learned Counsel for the petitioner sought time to move an application for amendment of the writ petition to challenge the said decision. Counter affidavit was filed to the amended writ petition, though it appears that inadvertently no formal order was passed on the said application, which has been allowed today.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners fairly admits that there has been delay on behalf of the petitioner in depositing the balance 25% amount, but submits that the same was on account of certain unavoidable family circumstances. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Reliable Laboratories (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. Delhi Development Authority & Anr. reported as 43 (1991) DLT 312, wherein it was held that there was no reason for the respondent authority to accept the balance amount, if the plot had to be cancelled. The cancellation took place after the balance amount had been paid and a writ of mandamus was issued directing that the cancellation should not be given effect to and the possession of the plot be handed over.