* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 28th October, 2009
+ LPA 629/2003
DDA ...........Appellant
Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan, Advocate.
versus
ANJUMAN COOP. GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY LTD.
...........Respondent
Through: Mr.Ateev Mathur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest? No.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. DDA has challenged the order dated 24.1.2003
passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court allowing WP(C)
No.7476/2000 resulting in the issuance of a mandamus directing
DDA to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to the writ
petitioner charging for the land @Rs.3,533/- per sq.mtr. Since
the writ petitioner had deposited the premium charge
@Rs.4,063/- per sq.mtr. it was directed that the differential sum
LPA No.629/2003 Page 1 of 7
be refunded within 6 weeks together with interest @12% per
annum from the date the amount was deposited till the date the
same was refunded.
2. Facts noted by the learned Single Judge are not in
dispute. Many co-operative societies had registered themselves
with the Registrar Co-operative Societies and as per the
departmental policy of DDA i.e. the appellant, depending upon
the membership of a co-operative society as certified by the
Registrar Co-operative Societies, land used to be allotted at pre-
determined rate as applicable and in force when the allotment
letter-cum-demand letter was issued. Writ Petitioner society
was one such society which had registered itself with the
Registrar Co-operative Societies.
3. Way back in the year 1992, the Registrar Co-
operative Societies had cleared the names of many co-operative
societies which included the writ petitioner society as eligible for
allotment of land by DDA and had certified that the approved
membership of the society was 120. Unfortunately, in a letter
dated 16.12.1993 addressed by the Registrar Co-operative
Societies to DDA, it got inadvertently recorded that the name of
the writ petitioner society had not been approved
notwithstanding the fact that on 31.8.1992 the Registrar Co-
LPA No.629/2003 Page 2 of 7
operative Society had written a communication, with copy
thereof to DDA as under:-
“No.F.47/1022/NGF/COOP/ Dated 31.8.92
To,
The President/Secretary,
Anjuman Coop. G/H Society Ltd.
E-33, Sushila Road, Adarsh Nagar,
Delhi-110 033.
SUB: Approval of final list of members of the society.
Sir,
With reference to your office letter dated 25.1.92 on
the above noted subject, you are hereby informed that
the final list of 120 members submitted by you has
been approved.
You are requested to collect a copy of the approved
final list on any working day.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(P.M.Tanwar)
Assistant Registrar (NGH)
Dt.31.8.92
No.F.47/1022/NGH/Coop/Copy to :
The Deputy Director (GH)
Delhi Development Authority,
Vikas Sadan, INA New Delhi.”
4. Draw of lots for allotting specific plots to various co-
operative societies whose names were cleared by the Registrar
Co-operative Societies till the year 1998 was held somewhere in
the year 1998 and to these co-operative societies land was
LPA No.629/2003 Page 3 of 7
allotted by issuing demand-cum-allotment letter on different
dates in the year 1999; the rate being charged @Rs.3,533/- per
sq.mtr.
5. When the writ petitioner society learnt of allotment of
land to other co-operative societies, its President wrote a letter
to DDA questioning why no allotment was made to the writ
petitioner society. At that stage it was realized by DDA that the
mistake committed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in
not reflecting the name of the petitioner society in the list of
approved societies forwarded to DDA was the cause of the
problem; compounded by DDA not being conscious of the letter
dated 31.8.1992, copy whereof was in the record of DDA. Thus,
DDA took corrective action by issuing a demand-cum-allotment
letter to the writ petitioner society on 20.11.1999 charging for
the land @Rs.4,063/- per sq.mtr. for the reason, there was a
revision in the land price between the year 1998, when
allotment letters were issued to other co-operative societies and
the year 1999, when the allotment letter was issued to the writ
petitioner society.
6. The writ petitioner society raised the issue with DDA
to correct the price at which land rate was made applicable to it.
Correspondence ensued between the society and the DDA. By
agreement of the parties the matter was referred to a Lok Adalat
LPA No.629/2003 Page 4 of 7
presided over by Justice J.D.Jain (Retd.), who, vide order dated
18.8.2000 held in favour of the society. But, the Vice Chairman
DDA did not agree to the order passed by the Presiding Officer
of the Lok Adalat, DDA. This necessitated the filing of the writ
petition.
7. Noting the stand of DDA that as per law, it was
entitled to charge land rate at the current prices when demand-
cum-allotment letter was issued, the learned Single Judge noted
that the entitlement of the writ petitioner society was at par with
the societies to whom allotments were made in the year 1998
and that the confusion arose due to an error committed by the
Registrar Co-operative Societies, but noting the letter dated
31.8.1992, contents whereof have been noted by us in para 3
above, held that there was no reason for DDA to have ignored
the said letter and not included the name of the writ petitioner
society when draw of lots were held in the year 1998. Thus,
finding blameworthy, the action of the officers of DDA, to undo
the discrimination which resulted against the writ petitioner
society, the mandamus as afore-noted was issued.
8. Ms.Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for DDA urges
that DDA is entitled to charge land premium at the rate
applicable in the year when the demand is raised.
LPA No.629/2003 Page 5 of 7
9. It is true that DDA is entitled to charge the land
premium as per the rate notified in the year when the demand-
cum-allotment letter is issued, but that right of the DDA is
subject to DDA acting justly, fairly, legally and without
negligence. Surely, DDA cannot take the benefit of its own
negligence, more so when the negligence of DDA is to the
detriment of a third party.
10. Learned counsel for DDA has rendered no satisfactory
explanation as to why DDA ignored the letter dated 31.8.1992
received by it from the Registrar Co-operative Societies.
Counsel simply urges that since the consolidated list received by
DDA excluded the name of the writ petitioner society, DDA acted
bona fide.
11. When DDA had in its record a specific letter dated
31.8.1992 pertaining to the writ petitioner society, we see no
justifiable cause for DDA to act pursuant to a general letter.
12. The view taken by the learned Single Judge is a
reasonable and a plausible view and not only conforms to law
but also conforms to equity. Equity plays an important role
whenever an extraordinary jurisdiction of a discretionary nature
is exercised by a Court of Record.
13. We find no infirmity in the impugned order and
accordingly we dismiss the appeal.
LPA No.629/2003 Page 6 of 7
14. Needless to state, DDA shall comply with the
mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge.
15. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
SURESH KAIT, J.
October 28, 2009
Dharmender
LPA No.629/2003 Page 7 of 7