Sanjay Bansal vs D.D.A. & Anr. on 18 August, 2008

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                                                        #38
+         LPA 469/2008

          SANJAY BANSAL                                       ..... Appellant
                                  Through : Mr. Rohit Verma, Advocate

                         versus

          D.D.A. & ANR.                                        ..... Respondent
                                  Through : Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Adv. with Mr. Prashant
                                            Mehra, Adv.

          CORAM:
          HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
          HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR

                                  ORDER

% 18.08.2008

Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent DDA accepts

notice.

2. Since the point involved in the matter is a short one, with the consent of learned

counsel for the parties, the appeal is being finally disposed of.

3. The appellant filed WP(C) No. 4337/2007 in this Court praying for a direction to

the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to either allot the residential plot at

Paschim Vihar, Delhi for which the appellant had applied under the “Paschim Vihar

Residential Scheme” or in the alternative, refund the sum of Rs.10,00,011/- together with

stamp duty along with interest @ 18% per annum from 24th August, 2005 till the date of

the impugned order.

4. The impugned order dated 14th May, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge

records the fact that the DDA handed over to the counsel for the appellant a cheque in the

sum of Rs.10,00,011/-. The order also records the fact that the appellant made a prayer

for payment of interest. The relevant portions of the impugned order read as under:

“Counsel for the petitioner contends that although he accepts the
cheque in the sum of Rs.10,00,011/-, but yet the petitioner is entitled to
interest as the respondent DDA has illegally deprived the petitioner to
utilize or invest the said amount. Counsel for the petitioner further
contends that the petitioner was not at fault as

LPA 469/2008 Pg.1 of 2
some bogus allotment of plot was made in favour of the petitioner and
initial deposit of Rs.10,00,011/- was accepted by the respondent DDA.

No document has been placed by the petitioner on record to show
that any bogus allotment was made by the respondent DDA in favour of
the petitioner. In any event, the allegations for such bogus papers have
been leveled against respondent No.4, as ex employee of DDA. Counsel
for the petitioner at this stage does not press award of interest on the said
initial deposit. The amount of Rs.10,00,011/- being paid to petitioner shall
be towards full and final satisfaction of his claim.”

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant points out that the statements

attributed to counsel for the appellant in the two paragraphs extracted above are

contradictory. He states that there was no concession made, nor was any instruction

given by the appellant to his counsel, not to press for the award of interest on the initial

deposit.

The admitted fact is that the DDA did hold on to the appellant’s money in the sum

of Rs.10,00,011/- from 23rd April, 2005 onwards. We see no reason why some nominal

interest ought not to have been awarded to the petitioner on the said amount till the date

of its payment.

Accordingly, we direct that the DDA will pay to the appellant simple interest @

9% per annum on the sum of Rs.10,00,011/- from 23rd April, 2005 till 13th May, 2008

within a period of eight weeks from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

                                                     CHIEF JUSTICE



                                                     S.MURALIDHAR, J
AUGUST 18, 2008
Pk


LPA 469/2008                                                        Pg.2 of 2