JUDGMENT
C.K. Mahajan, J.
1. By way of present petition, the petitioners
seek quashing of demand notice dated 16.1.1996 issued
by respondent/DDA demanding a composition fee of
Rs. 76,608/- from the petitioners.
2. The petitioners purchased a plot of land
bearing No. D-14/4, measuring 201.60 sq.mts. in an
open public auction for a sum of Rs. 2,62,000/-.
Possession of the plot was given to the petitioners on
11.2.1986. However, the lease deed was executed and
registered on 23.4.1987. As per the lease deed, the
petitioners were required to make construction on the
said plot within a period of three years from the date
of possession. By letter dated 4.3.1986 the
petitioners informed the respondent/DDA that there was
no basic amenities viz. electricity, water and
sewerage etc. and the petitioners were unable to make
construction on the plot in question. It was also
stated in the letter that DDA had committed fraud upon
the petitioners by auctioning the undeveloped plot.
Reminders were issued to the respondent/DDA on
19.5.1986, 9.3.1987, 13.9.1993, 30.8.1994 and
1.9.1994. The respondent/DDA failed to respond to the
aforesaid letter and reminders. By notice dated
16.1.1996, the respondent/DDA imposed a penalty of
Rs. 76,608/- on the petitioners on the ground that
building was not completed/constructed within the
stipulated time. Hence the present petition.
3. There is no appearance on behalf of
respondent/DDA. However, counter affidavit filed by
respondent/DDA way back in December, 1996 is on record
wherein the respondent/DDA stated that petitioner
should have satisfied themselves regarding
availability of civic amenities before bidding for the
plot. The water and sewerage connection was to be
provided by M.C.D. and the electricity connection by
D.E.S.U. It is admitted by respondent/DDA that water
was made available in August, 1989. It was also
stated that penalty of Rs. 76,608/- was imposed on the
petitioners on account of non-construction for the
period 11.2.1989 to 31.3.1996. It was also stated
that on inspection on 17.3.1994 it was found that
adjoining plots had been constructed and the units
were running their industries on them. It was stated
in the supplementary affidavit filed by respondent/DDA
on 6th August, 2001 that a sum of Rs. 99,51,601/- was
deposited with Delhi Vidyut Board towards
electrification of the bifurcated plots in Blocks D&F
in three stages on 10.6.1987, 6.10.1987 and 13.1.1998.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the documents on record.
5. Counsel for the petitioner contends that it
is the statutory duty of the DDA under Rule 26 and
Rule 29 of the Nazul Rule 1981 to auction the plots
only after these are fully developed and all amenities
mentioned in Section 2-A of Delhi Development Act,
1957 are provided. The respondent/DDA has itself
failed to fulfill its statutory duties and imposed
penalty on the petitioners for is own default. The
penalty was not warranted.
6. From the perusal of the documents on record,
it appears that respondent/DDA had declared that what
was being auctioned were developed industrial plots
but admittedly up to 1989 civic services and amenities
were not available. The petitioners were only
informed in 1995 that essential services had been
provided in 1989. In terms of the lease, construction
was to be completed within two years from 11.2.1986.
Lease was executed only in April, 1987. The
petitioners addressed communications to the
respondents and pointed out in 1993 and 1994 that
essential amenities were lacking and construction
could into be commenced. Extension was sought.
Respondents had misrepresented to the petitioner,
declaring land was developed. The water lines,
sewerage lines and electricity polls were not
provided. The petitioners ought to have granted
reasonable time for construction. The respondent/DDA
was required to fulfill its statutory duty under Rule
26 and Rule 29 of the Nazul Rule 1981 before
auctioning the plots. It had failed to do so.
Despite failure on the part of respondent/DDA to
fulfil its statutory duties under Nazul Rules, the
respondent/DDA imposed penalty on the petitioners for
not completing the construction. The act of the
respondent/DDA cannot be sustained in light of the
facts narrated above.
7. The petition is accordingly allowed. The
demand notice dated 16.1.1996 issued by respondent/DDA
demanding a composition fee of Rs. 76,608/- from the
petitioners is quashed.