GOPICHAND Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioners have alleged that in the auction held by the respondent on July 13, 1993, for shop No. 23 (area 11.31 sq. metres) in C.S.G. No. 2, Sector IX, Rohini, Delhi, they gave a bid of Rs. 2,71,000.00 . Since the bid of the petitioners was the highest, as per the terms and conditions (Annexure A) they deposited a sum of Rs. 67,750.00 as the earnest money i.e. 25% of the bid amount. After the bid of the petitioners was confirmed by the Vice Chairman, respondent issued a demand notice No. 93(62) 93 CE dated July 29, 1993 (Annexure B). In terms of this demand notice petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,11,425.00 within 30 days from the date of issue thereof. Amount demanded under the Head (h)(iii) in the said demand notice is as under : Ground Rent per annum ... Rs. 4,065 .00 Maintenance Charges ... Rs. 4,065.00

(2.) It is alleged that at the time of auction the petitioners were not informed that they would aslo be liable to pay the ground rent and maintenance charges alongwith the amount for which the bid was given by them. Therefore, on receipt of the above demand notice petitioner No. 1 visited the office of the respondent and contacted the concerned official and requested him to revise the demand notice but of no avail. Petitioners gota legal notice dated August 4,1993 served on the respondent through Mr. Raj Kishore Gupta, Advocate, calling upon it to rectify the demand notice but despite service thereof petitioners have not heard anything from the respondent. Under protest petitioners deposited a sum of Rs. 2,ll,500.00 as demanded in the notice dated July 29,1993. Possession of above shop No. 23 was thereafter delivered to the petitioner on September 21, 1993 by the respondent.

(3.) It is further alleged that the petitioners have come to know that in respect of shops Nos. 11,21 & 31 in C.S.C. No. 2, Sector IX, Rohini, respondent has fixed the ground rent at Rs. l,775.00 per annum each. Area of these shops too is 11.31 sq. metres each. Demand of the ground rent raised by the respondent vide notice dated July 29,1993 is thus discriminatory and it cannot charge ground rent more than Rs. l,775.00 per annum from the petitioners. It is also alleged that the amount of the maintenance charges is always equal to the ground rent, therefore, demand towards maintenance charges in the sum of Rs. 4,065.00 is further discriminatory. Moreover, in the aforementioned demand notice respondent has not disclosed the basis for calculating the amount of ground rent and maintenance charges. It is prayed that by issuing writ (s) of certiorari/mandamus demand raised in respect of ground rent and maintenance charges @ Rs. 4,065.00 each may be quashed and the respondent be directd to fix the ground rent and maintenance charges of shop No. 23 at Rs. l,775.00 per annum each with effect from September 21, 1993.