LINK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Link Engineers Pvt. Ltd. has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, on the allegations that the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale of industrial shed bearing No. A-10, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-11, New Delhi with Atam Prakash Mehta and Suresh Mehta by whom the said shed was purchased from DDA, respondent No. 1. in an open auction for a consideration of Rs. 2,68,000.00 on October 30, 1981. Liability to pay all charges for obtaining transfer of the shed as per the agreement was that of the petitioner. In March, 1986 the petitioner applied to respondent No. 1 for grant of permission for the purpose of sale. This was followed by a reminder dated 21.1.1987. Respondent No. 1 kept on asking the petitioner to carry out unnecessary formalities one after another. Ultimately respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner to produce the registered relinquishment deed from aforesaid Atam Prakash Mehta and Suresh Mehta.

(2.) It is alleged that when the petitioner approached the Collector of Stamps for registration of the relinquishment deed he declined to register it on the ground that shed being respondent No. 1's property permission be obtained first from respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 1 was not willing to grant the sale permission till the relinquishment deed was registered. The petitioner was thus compelled to file writ petition being No. 2142/89. Initially, show cause notice was issued to the respondents who filed their respective replies. After rule nisi was issued the writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 27.9.1990 (Annexure P 1). By this order respondent No. 1 was directed to communicate to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the order the extent of the unearned increase to be paid by the petitioner pursuant to the application made by it as far back as in 1987. It was further directed that on payment of the amount of unearned increase petitioner would be granted the sale permission. It is stated that the petitioner alongwith the communication dated 20.11.1990 sent by registered A.D. post to respondent No 1 enclosed the certified copy of the aforesaid order dated 27.9.1990 and called upon respondent No. 1 to effect the compliance thereof without any delay. Reminder dated 17.12.90 was also sent through registered A.D. post to respondent No .1. Thereafter, petitioner's representative made repeated visits to the office" respondent No. 1 for securing the compliance of the aforementioned order dated 27.9.1990. It is further alleged that petitioner received communication dated 15.5.1991 from respondent No. 1 requiring it to deposit exorbitant amount of unearned increase of Rs. l,48,903.00 within a period of 10 days. Respondent No. 1 allotted shed for Rs. 2,68,000.00 and the proposed sale consideration is Rs. 3,75,000.00 . Therefore, the gross unearned increase being the difference between these two amounts comes to Rs. l,07,000.00 and 50% thereof comes of Rs. 53,500.00 . Respondent No. 1 is entitled to collect 50% unearned increase and that to in relation to land component and not on superstructure. Out of the difference amount of Rs. l,07,000.00 , more than half is attributable to the structural portion. Aforesaid letter dated 15.5.1991 was despatched on 29.5.1991 i.e. much after the period of 10 days allowed for making the payment. It is stated that respondent No. I is not entitled to charge any amount more than Rs. 26,750.00 . or at the maximum Rs. 53,500.00 . It was prayed that the demand for Rs. l,48,903.00 and also the interest raised through the communication dated 15.5.1991 may be quashed being illegal and respondent No. 1 be directed to grant the sale permission on petitioner's depositing Rs. 26,750.00 or any other amount. Direction is further sought against respondents 2 and 3 to accept registration of the deed of relinquishment dated 29.11.1988 and other necessary documents.

(3.) By theorderdated21.6.1991 writ petition was disposed of extending the time for payment of the amount demanded in the communication dated 15.5.1991 upto 20.7.1991. Liberty was further reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No. 1 taking all the grounds which he had taken in the petition and respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the respresentation within a month from the date of receipt thereof in its office. However, by a subsequent order dated 24.7.1991 petition was revived and Rule DB was issued. Time for making the payment was extended till further orders.