SDB INTRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. DDA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition (i) impugns the letter dated 8th September, 1989 of the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (respondent no.2 is the Vice Chairman of the DDA) requiring the petitioner to hand over the possession of plot no.5, District Centre, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi with the superstructure standing thereon to the respondent DDA; (ii) impugns the letter dated 30th April, 1999 of the respondent DDA calling upon the petitioner to remove the breaches of the terms and conditions of auction of the aforesaid plot failing which action for cancellation of the bid of the petitioner with respect to the said plot shall be initiated; (iii) seeks a mandamus commanding the respondent DDA to execute the lease deed of the land underneath the aforesaid plot directly in favour of the sub-allottees or alternatively in favour of the petitioner; and, (iv) seeks a mandamus to the respondent DDA to accept the ground rent tendered by the petitioner from time to time.

(2.) It is inter alia the case of the petitioner (i) that in the auction held by the respondent DDA on 7th February, 1981 of plot no.5, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi, the bid of the petitioner being the highest was accepted and upon the petitioner paying the entire consideration, the actual physical possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on 9th September, 1981; (ii) that the petitioner raised a multi-storied commercial building on the said plot of land in accordance with the sanctioned building plan; (iii) that the building contains approximately 350 separate and distinct units and which were sought to be conveyed and sold by the petitioner to different persons; (iv) that the petitioner called upon the respondent DDA to execute the lease deed of the land in accordance with the terms and conditions of auction; (v) that the petitioner, under the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 (Apartment Act) also was under an obligation to execute the sub-leases in favour of allottees to whom different flats/shops/spaces in the building had been allotted by the petitioner; (vi) that the respondent DDA instead of executing the lease deed, issued a notice dated 25th November, 1988 asking the petitioner to show cause why the auction bid should not be cancelled in view of deviations in construction; (vii) the respondent DDA issued another show cause notice dated 27th April, 1989 under Section 30(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DDA Act) the unauthorised deviations mentioned therein were of the kind which had been made by the flat buyers after the completion of construction and allotment of different flats to them and the petitioner was not to blame therefor; (viii) that the petitioner has already parted with the entire premises to various flat owners and the petitioner could not control the unauthorised constructions by the said flat buyers; (ix) similar notices dated 7th June, 1989 and 11th July, 1989 were also issued by the respondent DDA to the petitioner; (x) the respondent DDA ultimately vide impugned letter dated 8th September, 1989 cancelled the bid and forfeited the money and directed the petitioner to hand over possession of the plot together with superstructure; (xi) however no proceedings for taking over possession were taken by the respondent DDA and on the contrary another show cause notice dated 20th September, 1989 under Section 30(1) of the DDA Act was issued; (xii) on the request of the petitioner, a joint inspection of the premises was carried out on 17th January, 1990 and the petitioner represented that the deviations alleged by the respondent DDA were beyond its control; (xiii) yet another show cause notice dated 30th April, 1991 was issued by the respondent DDA to the petitioner asking the petitioner to remove the breaches within 15 days failing which the bid of the petitioner will be cancelled; (xiv) that from the issuance of the notice dated 30th April, 1991 it was evident that the earlier notice dated 8th September, 1989 had been withdrawn by the respondent DDA; (xv) that if there is any misuse or unauthorised construction in any part of the building, the respondent DDA is at liberty to take action with respect thereto; (xvi) that the petitioner after having sold different flats in the building is left with no interest therein but remains liable for payment of ground rent; (xvii) though the petitioner from time to time tendered ground rent to the respondent DDA but the same was refused and on the contrary a demand for ground rent was raised; and, (xviii) that the petitioner offered to pay an amount of Rs.76,21,298/- towards ground rent but the same has not been accepted.

(3.) The petition came up first before this Court on 30th January, 2002 when notice thereof was issued. Rule was issued in the petition on 25th September, 2002 and it was directed that it will be open to the petitioner to deposit the ground rent and the same be accepted by the respondent DDA without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Repeated opportunities were taken by the respondent DDA to file reply/counter affidavit stating that the files pertaining to the subject property were with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Vide order dated 24th February, 2004 CBI was directed to hand over the relevant records to the respondent DDA. However it appears that the original record was stated to be not traceable.