UNION OF INDIA Vs. SIDDHARTH NAGPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that properties bearing No. J-3 (B)and J-3 (C), Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi were allotted to Shri Jairam Dass, grandfather of the respondent herein by virtue of perpetual lease deed dated 18th February, 1971. It is stated by the counsel for the respondent that after the demise of Shri Jairam Dass, rights in the property devolved upon the respondent herein and the property was mutated in his name in 1983, under the guardianship of his father, as the respondent herein was minor at that time. It is further stated that some construction work was carried out on plot bearing no. J-3 (B) whereas no construction was carried out on plot bearing No. J-3 (C ). On attainment of majority, when the respondent was in a position to carry out construction on plot bearing No. J-3 (C), he requested the Landdo for issuance of no Objection Certificate vide letter dated 9th March, 2004 so as to enable him to get the building plans sanctioned from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. However, instead of issuing No Objection Certificate, the appellant No. 2-Landdo issued a letter dated 21st June, 2004 whereby a sum of Rs. 10,15,895/- was demanded allegedly by way of penalty for non-construction on the property for the period from 1st January, 1976 to 30th June, 2005. An amount of Rs. 102/- was also demanded towards ground rent. The said penalty was levied giving effect to the Office Order dated 15th July, 1998, bearing No. 7/1998.

(3.) IT is the contention of the respondent that until he applied for No Objection certificate, no such demand was made nor any intimation of any penalty being levied against him was given. However, the respondent made the aforesaid payment, under protest and without prejudice to his rights, which was received by the appellants on 5th July, 2004 Subsequently, a No Objection Certificate was issued vide letter dated 26th July, 2004 Thereafter the respondent herein made a representation dated 8th September, 2004 requesting for withdrawal of the penalty. The said representation was rejected by the appellants herein vide letter dated 14th December, 2004 Again a request was made on 5th April, 2005, which again was turned down. The respondent thereafter challenged the said action of the appellants by filing a writ petition in this Court. The plea taken by the respondent is that the case of the respondent is one for extension of time for construction and should be governed by the rates of penalty applicable as per the office order of the appellants dated 31st March, 1976, bearing No. 24/76. The contention of the respondent is that the office order issued in 1998 cannot be given retrospective effect.