The Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge’s order wherein the Court had refused to interfere with Delhi Development Authority’s decision pertaining to non-issuance of fresh demand letter seeking outstanding amount from a successful bidder of a plot in Delhi’s Rohini and ruled that extension of time to deposit outstanding amount is a policy matter of DDA and the Court will be extremely slow in interfering with such policy decisions.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh while refusing to entertain the instant petition, noted:
“It ought to be kept in mind that extension of the time to deposit the outstanding amount of the price of the land is a policy matter of the DDA and this Court will be extremely slow in interfering with the policy of the DDA unless the same is violative of constitutional provisions or the same is arbitrary in nature.”
An appeal was preferred against an order passed by the Bench of Justice Najmi Waziri on September 20, 2021, wherein the Single Judge was of the view that there is no merit in petitioner’s claim for issuance of fresh demand letter from the DDA to arrange funds for making payment of the outstanding amount for a plot purchased in auction.
The petitioner, one Jitin Garg, was a successful bidder at an auction of a plot at Rohini held in September 2019. A Letter of Intent was issued by the DDA in December 2019 seeking payment of 25% of the total amount for the plot, which was paid by the petitioner in due time.
Thereafter, a demand letter was issued in March 2020 for payment of the remaining 75% of the total sale consideration by June 2020. After the period got over, the petitioner sought issuance of a fresh demand letter from the DDA to arrange for the outstanding amount, even though the DDA already extended time to make payment till December 31, 2020.
Also Read: Delhi HC disposes of plea for reopening of Mother Dairy shop in Noida Sector 19
“Enough is enough,” the Bench exclaimed, while observing that when the petitioner succeeded in the bid, he was well aware that he is required to deposit the amount for the plot in question within a stipulated time, and hence he should have been ready for payment of the full price.
“The Court cannot show more leniency, especially when there are contractual terms involved between the appellant and the respondent in auction of the plot in question and thereafter demand of the money by the Delhi Development Authority. In such demand there is bound to be a time-limit, otherwise there will be no end of extension of the time-limit and no sale can be finalized by the DDA,”
-stated the Bench.
The Bench further added:
“Too much extension of time to deposit the money is not desirable. Public body has to complete the work within the time limit. Salaries are to be paid and services are to be purchased. Hence, such allottees have to deposit the money within a time-bound schedule.”
The Bench concluded by observing, “Charity beyond law is a cruelty to others”, and dismissed the instant appeal.