LALIT MADHAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 2nd March, 1990 prayed for direction against the respondents to forthwith hand over peaceful, "acant and quiet possession of plot bearing No. A-1/171-A, Janak Puri, New Delhi and further to direct the Delhi Development Authority (for short D.D.A.) to pay interest at the rate of 24% p.a. on the amount deposited with D.D.A. since the date of deposit till the date the respondents handover actual physical possession of the auctioned plot.

(2.) Facts in brief are that respondent No. I, which is a statutory body, set up and functioning under the provisions of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 and is empowered to transfer land, placed at its disposal by Central Government, by way of sale, exchange or lease or otherwise, in exercise of its powers on 6th June, 1988 fixed an auction for transfer by way of sale on perpetual lease hold rights in respect of the aforementioned plot measuring about 444 sq.metres. The petitioner participated at such auction and was declared to be the highest bidder in respect of the plot at a bid of Rs. 21,05,000.00 . Petitioner's highest bid was accepted. The petitioner deposited 25% of the bid money amounting to Rs. 5,26,250.00 on the same day. On 13th June, 1988, after the petitioner's bid had been accepted, it is claimed by him that he personally visited the site and found the plot to have been encroached upon. He found three trees, three electricity/telephone poles and about 50 odd unauthorised hutments/Jhuggis on the plot. Through letter Annexure 'C' dated 14th June, 1988, the petitioner brought the fact of the plot having been encroached upon to the respondents. A photograph taken by the petitioner of site was also sent along with his representation to the respondents. The petitioner states that on 27th June, 1988, a request was made by him through letter Annexure 'D' to uefer the deposit of the amount covered by the demand notice dated 22nd June, 1988, by which the petitioner was asked to deposit the balance 75% of the bid money until encroachments were removed. Respondent No. I required the petitioner to comply with the demand notice and threatened to order forfeiture of the earnest money by drawing petitioner's attention to Rule 32 of the Rules framed by the respondents. The petitioner, thus, had no option but to deposit the amount of Rs. 15,78,071 .00 on 20th July, 1988, the due date.

(3.) Despite petitioner's having deposited the full amount, possession as per the stipulation contained in auction notice .was not delivered. Respondents were bound to deliver the vacant possession of the plot on receipt of the enitre amount of bid money. From time to time the petitioner had been requesting the respondents to have the plot vacated from the encroachers and to deliver vacant possession and ultimately when the respondents failed to do so,the petitioner was left with no other option except to approach-this Court by filing the present petition on 2nd March, 1990.