Delhi High Court
B.S. Bhatnagar vs Chairman, Delhi Development Authority on 10 May, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1990RLR355
Author: D.P. Wadhwa
Bench: D.P. Wadhwa
JUDGMENT D.P. Wadhwa, J.
(1) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :
(2) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :
(3) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :
(4) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :
(5) Plaintiff, a member of Coop. Society took sub-lease of a plot from Dda on 30.3.67 for Rs. 8,630.40. He then built on it spending Rs. 88,000.00 on construction. He then agreed to sell same to one K.C. Shukla on 24.3.77. As lease hold rights could not be sold without permission of Dda, he asked for it on 28.3.77 which was granted on payment of Rs. 88,394.00 on 19 5.79. Earlier he had applied for no objection certificate on 30.3.77 under Urban Land (C&R) Act was granted on 21.6.77. The vendee (Shukla) was allowed on 4.9.77 to mortgage property to raise loan. Plaintiff claiming that Dda, illegally over charged by showing excessive unearned increase sued for refund Along with interest ] After detailing facts, judgment is :
(6) The basic question that arises for consideration is as to what was the market value of the land and on that basis what could be the unearned increase share of the DDA. The plaintiff stated that he applied for permission to Dda on 28.3.77 which date as noted above has been disputed by the DDA. The letter by which the plaintiff sought permission is Ex. P-18 and with this, it appears, he enclosed all the relevant documents. Then on 23.3.78 he sent a reminder which is Ex. P-2. Admittedly this letter has been received by the DDA. In this letter, however, there is a mention of earlier letter sent by the plaintiff to the DDA. On the basis of this letter, Ex. P-2, the Dda granted permission on 19.5.79, Ex. P-3. It is difficult to understand how the Dda would have granted the permission without all the documents having been sent unless it had received a letter dated 28.3.77. As noted above, even permission to mortgage the property was granted to the purchaser Mr. Shukla by the Dda in June, 1977 itself. When the plaintiff appeared in the witness box he did state that he applied to the Dda as per letter Ex. P-l8. His statement on this count is unchallenged. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff did apply to the Dda for permission in March, 1977.
(7) The next question that arises is as to what would have been the reasonable lime in which the Dda should have granted permission. In the circumstances of the case when all the documents had been sent with letter Ex. P-18. three months period should have been sufficient for the Dda to grant or refuse the permission. Assuming that the application was received by the Dda for the first time on 22.3.78 it took over a year to grant the necessary permission. This delay has not been explained by the DDA. Dda, a public authority, could not have sit over the application and it should have discharged its duty under the perpetual lease deed within reasonable time.
(8) Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has referred to a letter from the Ministry of Works and Housing, which is dated 7.5.74 (Ex. Public Witness 2/1) to submit that from 14.4.74 till 1.4.79 the market value of the land in and around the area Malviya Nagar would be Rs 100.00 per square yard. Ex. P-14 is another letter from this Ministry and is dated 22.1.82 and is addressed to the plaintiff. In this letter it is mentioned that land prices were revised in June, 1979, w.e.f. .4.79 and the price of the land in Malviya Nagar, nearby which the suit property is situated, was Rs. 400.00 per square yard. In the present case the Dda has charged unearned increase at the rate of Rs 378.00 per square yard. Mr. Talwar, learned counsel for the defendants, therefore, contends that when the prices of land in Delhi are rising enormously, it could not be said that from 14.4.74 till April, 1979 the prices would have remained stationary and that too at such a low rate of Rs. 100.00 per square yard. He further says that Ex. PW-2/1 does not give any clear indication as to the market rate of the land at the time when agreement to sell in question was entered into or during the period near to that. I find substance in the argument of Mr. Talwar, but then as to what is the correct market value at that time, no evidence has been led by the Dda and as I have already mentioned above, the evidence was closed by an order of the court. However, f am of the opinion that there is enough evidence on record to arrive at the market value of the land at the relevant time. The sale consideration of the plot of the land was agreed to be at Rs. 1,75,000.00. The plaintiff admittedly spent Rs. 89.000.00 on the construction on the plot and thus after deducting this amount the cost of the land for which it was agreed to be sold to Mr. Shukla would be Rs. 86,000.00. From this amount Rs. 8630.40 is to be deducted which amount the plaintiff has paid towards premium of the plot. The un- earned increase of the price of land as per the agreement to sell would be Rs. 77,369.60. 50% of this amount would be unearned increase which could be claimed by the Dda and that would come to Rs. 38,684.80. The plaintiff was asked to pay Rs. 88,394.00 as unearned increase by the Dda as per letter Ex. P-3 and this amount has been deposited by the plaintiff on 30.6.79 under protest. The plaintiff can thus claim that he be paid excess amount of Rs. 49,709.20. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to refund of this amount from the DDA.
(9) The plaintiff certainly cannot be awarded any amount towards expenses incurred by him for his alleged forced stay at Delhi. No evidence has been led on this account and there is no reason the plaintiff should have stayed all this period at Delhi. I would decline the award of any expenses to the plaintiff on this account. Issues No. 1 and 3 are decided accordingly.
(10) The plaintiff has claimed interest @ 18% p.a. He even served a notice on the defendants claiming interest at this rate. Mr. Talwar has submitted that Dda normally charges interest @ 12% p. a. except when penal rate of interest is to be charged on account of default in breach of the agreement. In the circumstances, therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is untitled to claim interest @ 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 49,709.20 from 1.71979 till the date of the institution of the suit.
(11) Lastly the question would be the award of interest pendente lite and future. As far as interest pendente lite is concerned, the plaintiff would be paid at the same rate i.e. 12% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 49,709.00 from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. (12) The suit is, therefore, decreed for Rs. 49,709.00 with interest calculated @ 12% p a. on this amount from 1.7.79 till 5.7.1982, the date of the filing of the suit, with proportionate costs. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest on Rs 49,709.00 @ 12% p.a. from the date of the institution of the suit till the date of the decree and thereafter @ 6% p.a. on the principal amount adjudged i.e. Rs. 49,709.00. Suit is decreed against defendant Dda only.
(13) Since this suit was filed as an indigent person the registry will calculate the court fee payable as required u/Rule 10 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code .