INDIAN REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN an auction held on 20.10.2010 for sale of hotel plot No. 33 in Community Centre, Preet Vihar, Delhi, the petitioner submitted a bid of Rs 40,53,00,000/- which was accepted by the respondent-DDA. The respondent-DDA issued a letter, requiring it to deposit Rs 8,04,00,000/- being 20% of the bid amount. The said amount was deposited by the petitioner within the time stipulated in this regard. DDA issued allotment letter to the petitioner requiring it to deposit the balance amount of Rs 30,39,00,045/- within 90 days from the date of issue of the said letter. The aforesaid amount was also deposited by the petitioner on 11.05.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner having noticed that there was encroachment on the plot in question, wrote a letter to DDA on 28.04.2010, intimating that during visit of the site, a temporary Police Post was found constructed thereon, besides some other encroachment, railings, etc. DDA was accordingly requested to shift the Police Post and remove other encroachments from the site, so as to enable the petitioner to take possession in time. This was followed by yet another letter dated 12.05.2010 where a similar request was made to DDA with a caution that any delay in handing over possession due to the said encroachment shall be on their account. One more letter dated 17.05.2010 was written by the petitioner to DDA again, requesting it to remove the aforesaid encroachment.The stamp duty required to be affixed on the Conveyance Deed to be executed in favour of the petitioner was paid by the petitioner on 10.06.2010 and the letter dated 11.06.2010 was sent to DDA, requesting it to handover possession of plot in question after removing the Police Post and other encroachments from the said plot.

(2.) DDA issued letter dated 02.07.2010, informing the petitioner that it was intended to handover the possession of the aforesaid plot to it on or before 11.07.2010 and accordingly it should be present at the plot site on the appointed date at 11.00 AM. However, the possession of the aforesaid plot could not be given to the petitioner since the encroachment had not been removed.

(3.) WHEN this writ petition was taken up for hearing on 16.03.2011, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was ready to take possession of the plot after removal of encroachment. Thereupon, DDA counsel sought time for this purpose. Ultimately, possession of the aforesaid plot came to be handed over to the petitioner only on 22.10.2012. Therefore, as far as the first relief claimed in the writ petition is concerned, it has become infructuous on account of possession of the plot having already been handed over to the petitioner.