DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. RAVINDRA MOHAN AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A plot bearing No. 13 of Site No. 58 on Kalkaji Road, Delhi admeasuring 162 sq. m. with two sides open was put to auction on 5.2.1985 holding it out to be a developed plot by the Delhi Development Authority. The respondents made a bid of Rs. 3,25,000 which was the highest. The officer conducting the sale knocked down the bid in favour of the respondents. With the fall of the hammer, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs. 81,250 being 25 per cent of the bid amount. The authority competent to accept or not the bid was the Vice -Chairman of the DDA before whom the papers were placed. It appears that a public interest litigation was filed by a third party laying challenge to the auction complaining that the plot was situated in green belt and therefore could neither have been treated as a developed plot nor put to auction for any purpose other than use as a green belt. The High Court had issued an ad interim writ staying the auction. The interim order though passed earlier was brought to the knowledge of the Vice -Chairman, DDA after the authority had signed its approval of the bid on the file. The authority then stayed its hands in view of the High Court's order.

(2.) THE respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the DDA to conclude the auction -sale proceedings and hand over possession of the plot to the respondents. The High Court found that the plot being situated in the green belt, could not have been put to auction at all. The High Court by its order dated 1.8.1991 refused to grant any relief to the respondents so far as Plot No. 13 is concerned. However, it held that the respondents could not be faulted for having made a bid at the auction and inasmuch as an expectation has been built up in their favour of having a plot in the face of acute shortage of land in Delhi, the DDA was directed to give a plot to the respondents of equivalent measurement at the same price in the same area adjoining the area in question, i.e., Kalkaji within a period of two months from the date of the order.

(3.) LEAVE granted.