B L PATNI Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that Mr. B. L. Patni, who was working in a Senior Position in the Bank of India at the relevant time, purchased plot No. A3/133, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi in Public Auction from DDA for Rs.3,36,627.50. Possession of the plot was not delivered to the said auction purchaser as the plot had not been demarcated. Ultimately the plot was demarcated and possession delivered on 1.11.1989 after nearly 23 months of the date of auction. The complainant filed complaint registered as C-15/90 which was decided by this Commission by order dated 24.1.1991. The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.65.000/- with interest @ 15% from the date of complaint till payment. DDA failed to comply with the order and the complainant was obliged to take out execution. The amount awarded by the Commission was paid in those proceedings.

(2.) The complainant thereafter approached DDA for execution of the Lease Deed which was not done despite of continuous follow-up action on the part of the complainant. On 6.8.1992 a draft deed was sent to the complainant by DDA but the draft was defective in that the plot shown was incorrectly described in terms of its dimensions. The site plan sent with the draft deed lease was also incorrect. The complainant brought these defects in the draft deed to the notice of DDA who took a long time to rectify the same. The complainant was keen to have the Lease Deed so that he could get the building plan sanctioned and construct a building with the help of interest free loan which was available from the employer Bank. Moreover, the amount of auction money which was more than Rs.3.36 lacs odd was lying blocked and the complainant had no place of his own to reside. The cost of construction was also escalating. With these aspects in view, and inaction on the part of the DDA, the complainant filed the present complaint on 24.2.1993 for a direction to the opposite party to execute the Lease Deed immediately and pay interest on the amount of auction money @ 20%, Rs.5.00 lacs on account of escalation in the construction cost. Further compensation @ Rs.2,000/- per month for renting suitable place for residence and Rs.10,000/- as costs. In the written version filed by DDA, it was stated that the Draft Lease Deed had been issued on 13.5.1993 and the complainant was himself responsible for the delay as the Lease Deed had not been re-submitted duly stamped from the Collector of Stamps. It was denied that the complainant was entitled to any compensation. In the rejoinder, the complainant highlighted the fact that even though the earlier Case C-15/90 had been decided on 24.1.1991, the Draft Lease Deed was issued only on 13.5.1993 and received by the complainant on 24.5.1993 after the lapse of more than 27 months. The Collector of Stamp took usual time and assessed the Stamp Duty to be paid which was accordingly deposited on 1.9.1993. The Lease Deed duly stamped was returned by the office of the Collector of Stamp in the last week of September, 1993 and the same was re-submitted to DDA on 4.10.1993 against Receipt Serial No.025973 dated 4.10.1993. The Lease Deed was not received duly executed and only a receipt dated 24.10.1993 was hand delivered through one Mr. S. C. Sharma. The Lease Deed duly executed had not been received until 24.2.1994 and it was got registered before the Sub-Registrar on 3.3.1994. The difficulties of the complainant did not end there. In the Lease Deed which was executed in the circumstances stated above on 24.4.1994, Condition No.3 required that the building shall be constructed after obtaining sanction of the building plan with necessary designs, plans and specifications from the concerned authority within a period of two years from the date of delivery of possession which was in the present case 1st December, 1989. This condition could not obviously be complied with as the Lease Deed which contained this condition was itself executed on 24.2.1994. It, therefore, became necessary for complainant to obtain extension in the period allowed for completion of construction in the terms of the Lease Deed. The case of the complainant is that he approached the office of DDA for granting the extension but he was told that since the case was pending before the State Commission, further action on his request could be entertained only after the decision by the State Commission. In order to avoid further delay and embark upon an enquiry whether the complainant had, in fact, applied for extension of the period for construction, the complainant submitted another application on 23.3.1998. during the pendency of this complaint. A copy of the same was given to Mr. Atul Verma, Advocate who appeared for DDA on the relevant date. No action has been taken by DDA with regard to the grant of extension in time with the result that the complainant is unable to submit necessary building plans for sanction to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In the meanwhile the complainant has been paying vacant land tax imposed by the MCD in this connection, he deposited Rs.4,144/- on 5.1.1998. This includes penalty as well.

(3.) The complainant retired from service on 30.6.1992 and he was deprived of the facility to get an interest free loan for making construction of a residential house.