Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sunil Madnani vs Delhi Development Authority on 29 September, 2015
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, N.V. Ramana
1
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO(S). 36786/2013
(ARISING OUT OF IMPUGNED FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14/12/2012
IN LPA NO. 1054/2004 PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW
DELHI)
SUNIL MADNANI PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESPONDENT(S)
(WITH INTERIM RELIEF AND OFFICE REPORT)
Date : 29/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.K. Ganguli, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bhupesh, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
[VINOD LAKHINA] [ASHA SONI]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
[SIGNED ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE] Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Vinod Lakhina Date: 2015.10.01 16:43:37 IST Reason: 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8080 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36786/2013] SUNIL MADNANI ...APPELLANT VERSUS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...RESPONDENT ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 14th December, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by which the order of the learned single judge of the High Court allowing the writ petition and granting the reliefs prayed for has been reversed.
2
3. The relevant facts may be noticed at the outset.
4. In an open auction held on 14th January, 1992, one Pushpa Madnani and Balram Madnani, parents of the appellant-writ petitioner, had offered the highest bid (Rs.15,55,000/-) for a residential plot bearing Plot No.7, Site No.21, New Rajinder Nagar measuring 121.50 sq. mtrs. 25% of the bid amount was deposited by the highest bidders on the same date i.e. 14th January, 1992. Thereafter on 15th January, 1992 the bid was confirmed and demand for the balance amount of Rs.11,66,295/- was raised. A copy of the lease deed was also furnished to the highest bidders for completion of the necessary formalities.
3
5. Under the terms of the auction, the balance amount was to be paid within two months. However, it appears that the highest bidders Pushpa Madnani and Balram Madnani did not deposit the said amount as they were not well and instead filed an application for extension of time on 25th March, 1992. On the said date, another amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited. The respondent i.e. Delhi Development Authority (“D.D.A.” for short) on 6th May, 1992 issued a letter of cancellation of the bid submitted by the parents of the appellant. It appears that on 31st July, 1992 an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- was deposited by the parents of the appellant with the D.D.A. and on 3rd August, 1992 the highest bidders had sought revocation of cancellation of the bid. Thereafter on 6th August, 1992, the D.D.A. was informed that the highest bidders were ready to make the 4 payment with penalty and interest. While the matter was so situated the highest bidders, parents of the appellant, died on 2nd June, 1993 and 13th June 1993 respectively.
6. On 10th January, 1997, the D.D.A. forwarded a cheque of Rs.5,75,000/- made in the name of the deceased persons being the amount due after deduction of the forfeited amount. This was stated to be in furtherance of the cancellation letter dated 6th May, 1992. The aforesaid letter addressed to the deceased parents of the appellant reached the appellant on 10th January, 1997. The appellant claims that it is on the said date that for the first time he became aware of the highest bid offered by his parents; the payment(s) made and the cancellation of the said bid on the grounds assigned. Thereafter on 5 16th June, 1998, the appellant instituted the writ petition, out of which the present proceedings have arisen before the High Court of Delhi which was allowed by the learned single judge, as already noticed.
7. The learned single judge thought it proper to allow the writ petition and grant reliefs subject to the payment of interest on the amount offered, inter alia, on the ground that the materials placed before the Court indicated that at different points of time the authorities of the D.D.A. had recommended grant of extension of time to the deceased highest bidders, inter alia, on the ground that in similar cases such extension had been granted. The learned single judge specifically took note of the fact that such a decision was taken in the file on 6 24th September, 1992 by the Additional Director (OSB) of the D.D.A. who had recommended such extension in favour of the highest bidders. Insofar as the delay in instituting the writ petition is concerned, the learned single judge of the High Court took the view that the appellant having come to know of the bid offered by his parents and the cancellation thereof in the year 1997, the approach made to the High Court was immediately thereafter. In these facts, the learned single judge directed restoration of the bid and handing over of the plot in question to the appellant subject to payment of interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the balance amount of the bid amount along with restoration charges and all other applicable dues. Aggrieved, the D.D.A. had challenged the said order of the learned single judge in 7 Appeal.
8. Before the appellate Bench of the High Court two issues arose for consideration. The first is with regard to the delay in instituting the writ petition and the second is whether the appellant-writ petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of a Circular issued by the D.D.A. on 1st May, 1991 on the basis of which similar reliefs had been granted to the allottees in one Geeta colony whose bids/offers were cancelled in largely similar circumstances.
9. The Division Bench took the view that the writ petition was inordinately delayed as the cancellation was made in the year 1992 and the writ-petitioner had approached the High court in the year 1998. Insofar as the second question is 8 concerned the Division Bench of the High Court on an elaborate consideration of the Circular dated 1st May, 1991 held the same to be not applicable to the present case inasmuch as the said Circular, according to it, covered only such cases where full payment had been made and possession had been handed over.
10. Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has submitted that in the facts of the present case there was no delay on the part of the appellant in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court inasmuch as he had come to know of the offer made by his parents; acceptance thereof and the payments made thereunder as well as the cancellation of the said offer only in the year 1997. Shri Ganguli has also taken us to the Circular of the 9 D.D.A. dated 1st May, 1991 and also the rejoinder affidavit filed by the appellant before this Court and the enclosures thereto, particularly, the resolution of the D.D.A. dated 12th October, 2009 in respect of the plot holders of Geeta Colony whose allotments were cancelled on the grounds similar to that of the appellant, namely, non-payment of the balance amount of 75%. Shri Ganguli has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the aforesaid plot holders (17 in number) though were not successful before the High Court had made a representation to the concerned authority which was duly considered and the bids in question were restored on usual terms and conditions. Shri Ganguli has further pointed out that 17 plot holders whose bids were cancelled and subsequently restored by the resolution dated 12th 10 October, 2009 are similarly situated to the appellant and the findings of the High Court that the full payments were made in the cases of the plot holders of the Geeta Colony so as to make the Circular dated 1st May, 1991 inapplicable to the present case is clearly wrong.
11. In reply, Shri Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respodnent – D.D.A. has pointed out that the cases of the plot holders of Geeta Colony would be governed by the terms of that particular auction which contemplated handing over of possession on payment of 25% of the bid amount unlike the present case where possession was to be handed over on payment of the full amount. The Circular dated 1st May, 1991 and the Resolution dated 12th October, 1999 therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 11 D.D.A., is not applicable to the present case.
12. We have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar. Insofar as the issue of delay in instituting the writ proceeding is concerned, we are of the view that in the facts of the present case i.e. when the appellant could come to the know of the allotment and the cancellation thereof only on 10th January, 1997 and he had approached the High Court in the next year i.e. 1998 it cannot be said that the approach to the High Court was inordinately delayed/belated so as to refuse the appellant an adjudication on merits. Insofar as the Circular dated 1st May, 1991 and the Resolution dated 12th October, 2009 in respect of plot holders of Geeta Colony are concerned having considered the detail facts and 12 circumstances surrounding the said Circular and the Resolution, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in refusing to extend the benefit of the said Circular and the Resolution to the appellant on the ground that the case of the appellant is different from those of the plot holders of Geeta Colony. As in the case of the present appellant, the plot holders of Geeta Colony whose bids were cancelled and subsequently restored by Resolution dated 12th October, 2009 had also not paid the full amount and the only difference could be the handing over of possession. According to us, the said fact, by itself, would not be sufficient to deny a similar benefit to the appellant. In this connection, what cannot be lost sight of the fact that the plot holders of Geeta Colony in whose favour the benefit of the 13 Resolution was accorded had not succeeded in the High Court despite which the authority concerned had deemed it appropriate to grant the benefit under the Resolution dated 12th October, 2009.
13. In the present case, the area/size of the plot involved is 121.50 sq. mtrs. The appellant is the only person before us praying for the benefit of restoration of the cancellation of the bid. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the equities involved, we are of the view that an order of restoration of the bid cancelled by the D.D.A. would be called for in the interests of justice, however, subject to the condition that the appellant is called upon to pay an additional amount by way of interest at the rate of 24% per annum as per the following details:
14
Amount Interest
(in Rs.) [in Rs.]
Total bid 15,55,045.00
amount
Amount paid on 3,88,750.00
14.1.1992
Balance 11,66,695.00
Interests at 93,335.60
the rate of 24%
per annum from
14.3.1992 to
July, 1992 on
Rs.11,66,695.00
Amount paid on 5,50,000.00
31.7.1992
Balance 6,16,695.00
[11,66,695.00 –
5,50,000.00]
Interest at the 13,32,061.20
rate of 24% per
annum from
31.7.1992 to
29.5.2001
(approx. 9
years) on
Rs.6,16,695.00
Total interest 14,25,396.80
Rounded off 14,25,500.00
15
14. In addition to the payment of
interest which has been computed as above, all other charges including restoration charges etc. as leviable and payable under the policy of the D.D.A. will also be paid by the appellant. We further direct that the plot in question shall be used by the appellant only for residential purpose and shall not be transferred or alienated for a period of ten years from today.
15. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the order of cancellation of the bid in question is set aside and the D.D.A. is directed to make available the plot in question to the appellant subject to compliance of the conditions and payment of the amounts as above. Consequently, we allow this appeal and 16 interfere with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, as aforesaid.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(N.V. RAMANA) NEW DELHI SEPTEMBER 29, 2015