Delhi High Court
Om Apartment Pvt. Ltd. vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors. on 26 February, 2009
Author: Siddharth Mridul
Bench: Madan B. Lokur, Siddharth Mridul
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 195/1994
Reserved on : 12th February, 2009
Date of Decision : 26th February, 2009
OM APARTMENT PVT. LTD. ....... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv.
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr. Vikas Sharma, Adv.
% CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment? Yes.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest? Yes.
JUDGMENT
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
1. The Petitioner was the successful bidder at the auction of perpetual lease hold rights in commercial Plot No.92, Nehru Place, New Delhi, held by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). After construction of the multi-storey building, the Petitioner sold the apartments therein to various persons.
WP(C) 195/1994 Page 1 of 3
2. The Petitioner states that on 31st May, 1983 the Respondent issued show cause notice to the Petitioner stating therein that the basement is being used for office and shops contrary to the terms and conditions of the auction/lease deed. The Petitioner replied to the said show cause notice vide reply dated 10th June, 1983 denying that any breach of the terms and conditions of the auction was committed.
3. The DDA despite this reply vide communication dated 10th September, 1983 informed the Petitioner that the allotment of plot in question had been cancelled. Subsequently, ex-parte proceedings were taken against the Petitioner culminating with eviction order dated 19th July, 1993 under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971. According to the Petitioner the said impugned action was without notice or service and without affording any opportunity of hearing.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has drawn our attention to similar matters decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court being C.W. 2324/1993 (M/s Raja Towers (P) Ltd. and Anr. vs. DDA and Anr.) and CW 2364/1983 (Sh. Satinder Nath Kaul vs. Deputy Director (Commercial) DDA and Ors) both decided on 25th July, 2002. The learned Single Judge while allowing those petitions held that the DDA was at liberty to proceed against individual flat owners after due notice to them.
5. We do not see any reason to disagree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that floor space having been sold to the various flat buyers, the latter became owners thereof and, therefore, without hearing the WP(C) 195/1994 Page 2 of 3 said flat buyers who are affected parties, the action of cancelling the allotment was against the principles of natural justice.
6. That being the position, we allow the writ petition to the extent that the order dated 10th September, 1983, cancelling the allotment of the plot, and the eviction order dated 19th July, 1993 are hereby quashed.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
MADAN B. LOKUR, J.
February 26, 2009 bp WP(C) 195/1994 Page 3 of 3