PARMOD KUMAR Vs. LT GOVERNOR OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition had been disposed of by this Court on 15. 09. 2005. While disposing of the petition the Court had issued the following directions:

(2.) THE background facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased the plot in question bearing No. E-10, Prashant Vihar admeasuring 124 Sq. Mtrs. in public auction conducted by the DDA for Rs. 31. 50 lacs and deposited Rs. 8 lacs as earnest money. He was required to make a deposit of the balance amount of Rs. 23,50,016/- by 24. 02. 2003. In the meantime the petitioner found that there were various trees on the plot auctioned to him. He required the DDA to obtain permission for cutting of the said trees before possession and balance payment. Admittedly, it was the obligation of the dda to obtain the said permission from the Tree Officer to remove the trees so that vacant possession of the plot could have been delivered to the petitioner. The respondent for one or the other reason was not able to obtain the permission from the Tree Officer. The petitioner preferred the present writ petition and the same was disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Thereafter, the respondent DDA obtained the permission from the Tree officer and removed the trees on the said plot. The respondent issued a communication date 30. 06. 2007 requiring the petitioner to comply with various conditions. It, inter alia, included deposit of 75% of the premium amount for the plot. The petitioner was required to give his consent to the terms and conditions of auction on a non judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 10/ -. The petitioner complied with the said conditions on 06. 08. 2007.

(3.) THE respondent vide a communication dated 31. 08. 2007 /10. 09. 2007 forwarded the proforma of the lease deed to be executed by the petitioner. The petitioner states that from the said proforma, he could gather that he was being required to pay the ground rent from the year 2002. The petitioner represented against the aforesaid move of the DDA vide communication dated 21. 09. 2007. In the meantime, the petitioner had already preferred contempt Case No. 1488-89/2005. That petition was disposed of on 09. 01. 2008. In that proceeding the respondent DDA stated that they would hand over the possession of the plot to the petitioner upon his making payment of the requisite stamp duty and the ground rent as per the policy of the DDA. The petitioner disputed the demand raised by the respondent towards ground rent. The Court observed that the said issue requires substantive adjudication and that it could not be gone into in a Contempt case. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred the present application to seek a direction to the respondent to give effect to the lease deed prospectively and consequently to charge the Ground Rent from the date the possession of the plot is handed over to the petitioner.