RAMA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 60,79,875.00 with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realisation. The plaintiff claims the amount on the basis that a sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs was paid to the DDA at the time of auction on 12.3.1982 of commercial plots in Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. The DDA represented that the plot was with in Slum Area and, therefore, the FAR was 400 and the plans to be submitted by the plaintiff would be approved. According to the plaintiff, as per the Master Plan, the plot was outside Slum Area and; therefore, the whole basis of the auction was contrary to law and consequently the plaintiff would be entitled to the return of die sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs even though the bid amount of Rs. 1.86 crores was accepted by the DDA by its letter dated 13.3.1982.

(2.) The DDA put forth the plea that it had acted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and the land was within Slum Area and there was no misrepresentation by the DDA and it was the plaintiff who committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the auction and, therefore, by virtue of Clause 2(iv) the sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs which was given as earnest by the plaintiff on the date of auction stood forfeited, in the above back drop, I propose to highlight the pleadings without extracting in detail the averments in the plaint, written statement and the replication. In paragraph 4 of the amended plaint, the plaintiff stated that the architectural control drawings were not exhibited at the time of auction. In paragraph 7A it is stated that the auction of the plot No. 9 was totally illegal. The plot did not fall under the Slum Area and, therefore, the auction was not authorised. The plaintiff was supplied with architectural control drawings on 15.10.1982 and the delay in supplying drawings had resulted in heavy loss to the plaintiff because the plaintiff could not deal with the intending purchasers with dispatch. The architectural control drawings were not in accordance with the Building Bye-Laws by Delhi Municipal Corporation. The plot was not auctionable for commercial and office building as the space could beutilised only for common path and passage. The plaintiff had referred to in paragraph 12 dhanm staged by certain persons in the locality and also a civil suit pending in the lower Court. In paragraph 17, it is stated that the plaintiff informed the DDA that the auction of the plot was not in accordance with the Master Plan for Delhi and the Bye-Laws of Delhi Municipal Corporation. The plaintiff no doubt, asked for extension of time to make payment. The plaintiff wrote on 14.5.1982 for extension because of the agitation by dharm by local residents the plaintiff could sell and there was no reply to this letter by the DDA. Eventually the plaintiff asked for return of the sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs. According to the plaintiff when the auction itself was not authorised the DDA cannot seek to appropriate the entire sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs and it was the DDA who brought about the situation and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the return of the money.

(3.) The DDA filed the written statement refuting the averments in the plaint. Briefly, the case of the DDA could be set out in the following terms. The commercial setup of Asaf Ali Road was developed by Delhi Improvement Trust before 1956. That was developed as a part of Delhi Ajmeri Gate Redevelopment Scheme in the year 1946. The strip of land 294.50 sq.mts. between Life Insurance Corporation Building and the Hoechst Building form part of Chunk No. 7 of the D.A.G Scheme and the area could not be developed because already there was built tip area and there was resistance to clearance operation. There was a notification on 10.4.1957 notifying this area as Slum under the slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956. The area was cleared in the year 1976. A Redevelopment Plan for this pocket was prepared by the Slum Department under Section II of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 and it was put into operation in the year 1977. Five out of ten plots were auctioned by the Slum Department, DDA on 12.3.1982. Detailed terms and conditions were furnished by the office of the Jr. Town Planner (Slum). The plaintiff bid at the auction, deposited 25% of the bid amount Rs. 46.50 lakhs and the same was accepted on 13.3.1982. The plaintiff wrote to the DDA about agitation and the DDA replied by staling that there was no agitation, and it had been withdrawn and the plaintiff was assured about the vacant possession on the plaintiff's paying bid money. The plaintiff on 14.5.1982 requested for extension of three months' time and that was granted by the DDA by letter dated 20.8.1982 upto 29.8.1982. The plaintiff did not pay the amount. The forfeiture of the earnest money was communicated to the plaintiff on28.3.1983. The plaintiff is estopped by its own conduct to challenge validity of the auction when it had acted as per the terms and conditions with reference to plot No. 10. According to DDA, the architectural control drawings were exhibited at the time of auction. The contract provided for furnishing of architectural control drawings on payment of money to the successful bidder. The plaintiff did not apply for the supply of architectural control drawings for plot No. 9 while the plaintiff had taken architectural control drawings for plot No. 10. For reasons best known to it, the plaintiff did not apply for the drawings for plot No. 9. Regarding the plea that the drawings were contrary to the Master Plan and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Bye-Laws by the plaintiff, the answer by the DDA is that under Section 39 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 the DDA can act under Section 53 of the Delhi Development Authority Act has absolutely no application.lt is stated'the commercial area of 10 plots in the Re-development Scheme was provided with open space/ parks in such a manner that the total sum of the FAR of 10 plots did not exceed 300. However, it is also reiterated that in view of the provisions of Section 53 of the Delhi Development Authority Act and Section 39 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act, 1956 the Competent Authority under the Slum Act could permit construction of build ings even with higher FARs. " DDA stated that it had not acted against the Scheme and the Master Plan. It is specifically stated in paragraph II of the written statement: