GAURAV ENTERPRISES Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent to withdraw letter (annexure-P) dated 13.10.1995 with further direction to allot to it C.S.C. Plot No.6, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi at the auction rate i.e. taking the bid amount divided by the area of the plot announced at the time of auction.

(2.) The admitted facts are that in July, 1994, the respondent announced the auction of Convenient Shopping Centre Site No.6, Sector 15, Rohini, New Delhi measuring 1285.51 sq.mts., which was to take place on 26.8.194 at 11.30 a.m. at D.D.A.Auction Hall, Vikas Sadan, I.N.A. Market, New Delhi. The user prescribed was shop-cum- office. The auction took place on the specified date as per the terms and conditions of auction annexure-B. The petitioner was declared the highest bidder at a premium of Rs.24,35,000.00 . Clause 2(vii) of the terms and conditions of auction inter alia provide that the size of the plot announced by the respondent was only approximate; and the highest bidder shall have to accept variation upto 15% either way in the area of the plot subject to the payment or refund as the case may be of the amount of premium, for such varied area, at the auction rate. The auction rate per sq. mt. for this purpose was to be calculated by dividing the amount of the premium offered as the highest bid by the area of the plot. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.6,08,750.00 towards 25% of the bid money.

(3.) It is the petitioners' case that as per the requirement of the terms and conditions petitioner No.2 went to collect the demand notice after two days but the same was not ready. Again petitioner No.2 visited the office of DDA on 6.9.1994 for the same purpose but he was informed that the demand letter had been sent by registered post to the petitioner. The same was received by the petitioner on 15.9.1994. On receipt of the demand notice (annexure-D), the petitioner on the same day wrote letter (annexure-E) to the respondent asking for the site plan along with dimensions of the plot. The same were delivered to the petitioner by the respondent on 22.9.1994. It is stated by the petitioner that the plot area depicted on the said site plan (annexure-F) is 1285.57 sq.mts. and it also describes the boundary and other specifications. On receipt of the site plan, the petitioner got measured the area and was surprised to note that the actual area of the plot was 925 sq.mts. not 1285.51 sq.mts. and as such there was a difference of 28.2% in the area announced at the time of the bid and what was available on spot. Petitioner No.2 thereafter visited the office of DDA. Officials of DDA informed petitioner No.2 that the plot, which was actually meant for auction was a different plot with different boundaries and not plot No.6, as per the site plan anneuxre-F. Petitioner No.2 was surprised at the stand taken by the respondent's officials and on 29.9.1994 sent representation (annexure-G) to Vice Chairman, D.D.A. informing that the petitioner was keen to make the balance payment although the plot was 925 sq.mts. and prayed for a fresh demand notice to be issued immediately. The petitioner had thereafter been pursuing the matter with the respondent by sending representations [(annexures-I to O) dated 19.12.1994, 13.3.1995, 3.4.1995, 27.4.1995, 17.5.1995, 2.6.1995 and 23.6.1995] and personally contacting the concerned officials with a request to issue fresh demand notice as per the actual area of the plot and also emphasising that the respondent while retaining a sum of Rs.6,08,750.00 time was not taking prompt steps to issue a fresh demand notice. After a long wait, the petitioner was surprised and shocked to receive letter (annexure- P) dated 13.10.1995 informing that the area of the plot does not cover 15% variation, therefore, it had been decided to refund the earnest money. The petitioner was also informed that since the petitioner had failed to deposit the balance premium within the stipulated period, the auction bid had to be cancelled.