Rekha Chugh v. Delhi Development Authority

A. K. CHAWLA, J JULY 19, 2017 rc

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment pronounced on : 19th July, 2017. + W.P.(C) 2310/2016 REKHA CHUGH ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Naveen Pushkarna, Adv. Versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent Through Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA 19.07.2017 A.K. CHAWLA, (ORAL) By the petition filed under Sections 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of communications Ref. No. F25(117)76/CL/2070 dated 12.8.2015 and F.25(117)76/CL/2779 dated 18.11.2015 raising demand of Rs.2,33,376/- (Rupees Two Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Six only) towards damage charges. Such demand is sought to be deposited, on an application made by the petitioner for the purposes of conversion of built-up shop no.3 Block No.7, Chhoti Subzi Mandi, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in short 'the subject property', from leasehold to freehold. 2. Precisely, the factual conspectus is that the petitioner is holding 'the subject property' as a lessee. Under a scheme of the respondent for transfer of leasehold rights to freehold, the petitioner made an application dated 29.7.2013 and deposited a sum of Rs.96,166/-. Request so made was followed up by various letters from 3.9.2013 onwards, which are detailed in para 4 of the petition. Initially, the respondent demanded certain additional documents for processing the application, but, after the issuance of the legal notice dated 26.8.2014, the impugned letter ref. No. F25(117)76/CL/2070 dated 12.8.2015 came to be issued by the respondent, demanding damage charges for the conversion asked for. Similar communication is said to have been issued again on 18.11.2015, which is the other impugned letter. In the petition filed, the petitioner states that while he did not receive any response to the letter dated 10.10.2015 sent under RTI Act asking for the reason to levy damage charges and the calculation thereof, the respondent never explained the alleged charges by any means. In the counter affidavit, the respondent adverts to a show cause notice dated 30.11.1990 issued by the respondent for unauthorized encroachment and construction of 95% wooded loft and a tin shed provided in front of the shop and it was there-against, the respondent had demanded the damage charges for Rs.2,33,376/- on 12.8.2015. 3. During the course of hearing, ld. counsel for the respondent was queried as to whether such notice dated 30.11.1990 was ever served upon the petitioner or not, and, under what provisions of law and the procedure, such show cause notice had culminated into the demand of Rs.2,33,376/-. Counter affidavit is silent on this vital aspect and the ld. counsel for the respondent has been at pains to explain. Suffice to say, petitioner cannot be coerced to make payment without the respondent following the due process of law and the procedure. Be that as it may, in AIR 2011 SC 1399 Delhi Development Authority vs. Ram Prakash, Hon'ble Supreme Court upholding the judgment of this Court, held that where the respondent had not initiated action within a reasonable time, it would be inequitable to allow the respondent to take advantage of its inaction in claiming mis-user charges, observing as under : "19. Appearing in person, the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that after the Show-Cause Notices were issued no action whatsoever was taken on the basis thereof and all of a sudden the exorbitant misuser charges, amounting to Rs.1,78,85,001/- was demanded from him. Professor Ram Prakash submitted that from 1983, nothing had been done by the DDA on the basis of the Show-Cause Notices which had been issued, to which the respondent had promptly replied stating that the construction on the terrace had been effected by the tenants and not by him and in respect whereof proper proceedings had been initiated for their eviction from the premises. The respondent submitted that it is only under severe compulsion, that he had to move the Writ Court for relief in relation