484 VDBhog Vs DDA 30 03 1 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2008/00484/LS
Appellant: Shri V.D. Bhog
Public Authority: Delhi Development Authority
(through Shri S.S. Gill, Director(RL)(AA)
Date of Hearing: 30/03/2009
Date of Decision: 30/03/2009
FACTS
:-
The matter, in short, is that, the Appellant was allotted plot No.206 in State Bank
Nagar, Pashchim Vihar, New Delhi, by the SBI House Building Cooperative Society in
1986. He requested for the conversion of this property in 2004. Thereupon, DDA
raised a demand of peripheral charges @ Rs.70/- per square meter retrospectively with
effect from 1987. The principal amount comes to about Rs.14,000/- and the interest
thereon with effect from 1987 comes to about Rs.28,000/-. Thus, according to DDA, the
amount payable by the Appellant is about 41,000/-, as on January, 2008. It is in this
connection that by his letter of 06/10/2007, the Appellant had sought information on eight
points.
2. The CPIO had responded to it vide his letter dated 26/10/2007, enclosing
therewith point-wise information received from Deputy Director (CS). Subsequently,
additional information was provided to the Appellant vide letter dated 14/01/2008 of
Assistant Director (CS), wherein the total amount payable was shown as 41,381/- as on
14/01/2008.
3. Aggrieved with the decision of CPIO, the Appellant had filed the first Appeal
before Smt. Asma Manzar, Commissioner (Land Disposal), vide letter dated 19/11/2007.
It, however, appears, that the Appeal has not yet been decided.
4. Aggrieved with this, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal before this
Commission.
5. The matter was heard on 30/03/2009. The Appellant appeared before the
Commission. The Public Authority is represented by the officer named above. The
Appellant would make the following submissions:-
(i) that he had filed first Appeal against the decision of CPIO before Smt.
Asma Manzar, Commissioner (LD), way back on 19/11/2007 in which
hearing was held but no decision has been communicated to him;
(ii) that the CPIO had sent him piece meal information and no composite reply
has been sent to him;
(iii) that no amount is due from him as peripheral charges, let alone any
interest thereon;
484 VDBhog Vs DDA 30 03 1 2
(iv) importantly, that peripheral charges were recovered from him way back in
1989 at the time of approving his construction plan and in support thereof,
he produces the receipt of Rs.1,897/-, given by DDA. Thus, no peripheral
charges are due from him.
(v) that the DDA is unjustifiably claiming interest on the principal amount on
the plea that they had sent a letter dated 18/08/1987 to him indicating
therein that the rate of peripheral charges had been increased from Rs.16/-
Rs.70/- per square meter. The truth is that this letter was never delivered
to him and no interest is payable by him.
6. On the other hand, it is the submission of Shri Gill that the question of charging of
peripheral charges was decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated
24/10/2002, in Civil Writ Petition No.1045 of 1987, wherein the Hon’ble High court
permitted the recovery of peripheral charges @ Rs.70/- per square meter. It is on the
authority of this judgment that the peripheral charges are being recovered from the
Appellant.
7. To this, the Appellant would respond the impugned High Court order is
applicable only to the Societies which were petitioners/respondents before the Hon’ble
High court. As his Society was neither a petitioner nor a respondent before the Hon’ble
High court, the peripheral charges cannot be recovered from him under the authority of
this order.
8. I have heard the parties. The fact, however, remains that the first appeal filed by
the Appellant has not yet been decided by the Appellate Authority. It would, thus, be
appropriate to remand the case to the first Appellate Authority for its decision. Shri Gill
submits that Smt. Asma Manzar is no more the Appellate Authority and he is the
Appellate Authority in this matter. He also submits that he will be busy in Election Duty
for about eight weeks and requests for time of about ten weeks to decide the matter.
DECISION
9. In view of the above, the case is remanded to Shri S.S. Gill with the direction to
pass a reasoned order in ten weeks time from the issue of this order.
10. The Appellant, however, will at liberty to move the Commission, again, if he is
aggrieved with the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
11. The matter is disposed of subject to the above directions.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma)
Central Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges,
prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53