PRADEEP CHADHA vs DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

THE case of the complainant is that the complainants in response to an advertisement for auction of shops on perpetual lease-hold basis made a bid for Shop No. 25, CSC GH-13, Paschimpuri, G-17, Delhi alongwith kitchen and veranda comprising an area of 28.41 sq. meters + 9 sq. meters + 18.00 sq. meters in an open auction held on 18.10.89. THE complainants made a bid of Rs. 6 lacs and deposited 25% of the amount i.e. Rs. 1,50,000/- at the fall of hammer. Another sum of Rs. 4,67,970/- was deposited by the complainants on 17.11.89 as required vide demand notice of Delhi Development Authority (D.DA), the respondent, dated 19.10.89. This amount included a sum of Rs. 8965.50 as ground rent and Rs. 8962.50 towards miscellaneous charges.

THE Deputy Director (CE) of DDA vide his letter dated 23.11.89 informed the complainant to approach their Assistant Engineer for taking possession of the shop. THE letter of possession was delivered to the complainants in the respondent''s office on 11.12.89. After taking possession of the allotted shop the complainant visited the site and found that a space of about 12 sq. meters in front of kitchen had been bifurcated which reduced the area of the shop allotted to them by about 12 sq. meters and its front of 6 meters was reduced to that of 3 meters. THE complainants further alleged that this area was ear-marked as Shop No. 26 by DDA to earn more profit. This wrongful act of the respondent has deprived the complainants of the fruits of their investment. THE complainants further submitted that at the time of the auction they were given to understand that all the amenities and essential supplies including water and electricity were available in the premises. However, after taking over the possession of the shop the complainants found that neither water nor electricity was available in the premises allotted to them. Further there was no proper approach, the front road facing the shop was not yet properly metalled. The petitioner had purchased the shop for carrying on the business of Halwai. On account of non-availability of essential supplies and on account of reduction of the frontage of the shop from 6 meters to 3 meters they could not start their business which they had planned to start on 1.1.90. Thus the complainants have been deprived of their earnings from their proposed business of Halwai w.e.f. 1.1.90 which would have been around Rs. 10,000/- p.m. The complainants have sought the following reliefs: - (a) The possession remaining portion of Shop No. 25, C.S.C., GH-13, Paschimpuri, G- 17, Delhi, be given to them. (b) The damages @ Rs. 10,000/- per month w.e.f. 1.1.90 till date be paid to them. (c) Cost and other expenses of the present case be also awarded to the petitioner.

The respondent vide its reply dated 3.7.90 denied the allegations made by the complainants and submitted that the complainants made a bid for Shop No. 25 in the auction held on 18.10.89 and offered Rs. 6,00,000/- against the reserve price of Rs. 5,78,000/-. As per the bid form signed by the complainants and the Presiding Officer no area of 9 sq. meters as claimed by the complainants has been mentioned in the bid form. The respondent produced a statement issued by the office of the Accounts Officer (Works) III DDA pertaining to the out come of the auction of built up units in CSC at GH-13, Paschimpuri, G-17 held on 18.10.89 signed by Sh. D.S. Mankotia, Accounts Officer (Works) III. This statement pertains to a total of 17 built up units auctioned on 18.10.89. Shop No. 15 is listed at serial no. 11. The area shown is 28.41 sq. meters reserved price Rs. 5,78,000/- and bid amount Rs. 6 lacs. At serial no. 12 is listed Shop No. 28. Atta Chakki with an area of 12.82 sq. meters reserve price of Rs. 66,900/- bid amount of Rs. 3 lacs.

DETAILS displayed at the date of auction list Shop No. 25 at serial no. 11 with an area of 28.41 sq. meters. The respondent has contended that the halwai Shop No. 25 contained halwai shop with kitchen and measured 28.41 sq. meters. Before conducting the auction the area of the Halwai Shop under reference as 28.41 sq. meters was announced by the auctioner. This area also tallys with the area shown in the lay-out plan of the auction programme. The respondent also denied the complainants contention that at the time of auction civil services were not provided. Further the complainants took over the possession of the shop as per the possession letter issued on 23.11.89 and did not raise any objection at that time that they were given less area. If the complainants had any grievance they should have raised it at the time of taking over possession. Sh. Pradeep Chadha, one of the complainants, submitted his affidavit dated 5.7.90 by way of evidence wherein he has stated on oath that at the time of allotment on perpetual lease hold basis the area offered to him of Shop No. 25 alongwith kitchen and veranda contained an area of 28.41 sq. meters + 18 sq. meters for the courtyard and 9 sq. meters for the kitchen. He has further contended that at the time of auction the officer of the respondent DDA had displayed at site the plan of the shop having an area of 28.41 sq. meters alongwith court yard of 18 sq. meters and kitchen of 9 sq. meters. He was also told that the front of the shop would be 6 meters. The complainant further deposed that when he visited the site after receiving the possession letter he discovered that the respondent, DDA, after the allotment of the shop including the kitchen and the court yard and after receipt of entire consideration amount had raised a wall on the front side of the shop dividing its front portion and bifurcating a space of about 12 sq. meters in front of the kitchen separately and reducing the area of the shop allotted to the complainants by about 12 sq. meters and its front of 6 sq. meters to that of 3 meters.

THE complainant has further submitted that after measurement of the area of the shop it was found that the area at site was 16.41 sq. meters instead of 28.41 sq. meters and a portion had been separated from the shop allotted to the deponent and his wife though the same was its portion but was given a wrong number i.e., no. 26 to earn more money by the officers of the DDA. Shop No. 26 is the remaining portion of Shop No. 25 and should be handed over to the complainant. Sh. Pradeep Chadha has further stated in his affidavit that after taking over the possession letter for the shop be found that neither there was water nor electricity available in the premises allotted to the deponent and his wife. During the cross-examination of Sh. Pradeep Chadha on 22nd October 1990, he admitted that he took possession of the shop on 11.12.89 but he did not measure the shop at that time and he did not lodge any protest that he had been given less area. When confronted with an application dated nil (Exhibit R-I) the complainant confirmed that he had filed a Civil Suit in the Court of subordinate Judge Delhi regarding this property. He further confirmed that he made an application for injunction that the DDA should not deliver possession of the Shop No. 26 which has been marked as red in the plan attached with the application for injunction. He also filed an affidavit with the application. The Court ordered Status-que on his application. The complainant further submitted that after taking possession of the shop he took measurement of the same but did not take measurement of the contiguous shop regarding which status-quo was ordered by the Court. The covered area of the shop possession of which was delivered to him was 18 sq. meters and odd. A kitchen measuring 9 sq. meters and a court yard measuring 18 sq. meters was attached to the shop. The complainant admitted that he had been given no objection certificates dated 23.11.89 by DDA (Exhibits R-6 & R-7) to enable him to obtain electricity and water connections in his name. The complainant further admitted that in the Civil Suit Sh. R.K. Mehta, advocate, was his counselus in the present complaint. He confirmed that an area of 28.41 sq. meters was sold to him, then added that this was the area of main shop, the kitchen and court-yard were extra. He denied the suggestion that he had colluded with the staff of DDA and had interpolated the record and got area of kitchen, 9 sq. meters and court yard, 15 sq. meters added to the area of the shop in the bid register. The complainant accepted the fact that on the date of auction 10 or 11 shops were auctioned. The relevant information regarding the details of the properties to be auctioned was supplied to the bidders in cyclostyled sheets. He added that the sheets were got corrected later by announcing through the microphone regarding certain shops including his shop. He voluntarily stated that the area of the Shop No. 25 was got corrected by the officer concerned. Earlier the area of the shop was shown as 28.41 sq. meters. Later the area of courtyard and kitchen were got added from the announcement made by the DDA officials.

THE complainant admitted that he had signed the application (Exhibit R-1) at that time he did not ask the officer that he had purchased more area than 28.41 sq. meters and that the correction may be incorporated in the said documents. He also did not make any oral complaint to the officer of DDA about it. He further deposed during his cross-examination on 30.10.90 that the area he got from DDA was 16.41 sq. meters for the main shop.

THE respondent, DDA, produced the record in original which included the drawings of the Scheme No. 1234 prepared in the year 1986 alongwith the details of costing, the covered area as well as the area of the court -yard. Three affidavits of Sh. H.K. Crhoomar, Asstt. Architect dated 8.12.90, Sh. V.K. Nanda, Executive Engineer, Western Division, H.Q. 13 and Sh. Krishan Lal, Director (Slum) were submitted by way of evidence. Sh. Crhoomar deposed that he was the concerned officer who had signed the original drawings of Scheme No. 1234 prepared in 1986. He confirmed that the said area of Shop No. 25 including kitchen was 28.41 sq. meters and the area of the shop is given in consolidated figure and not in parts. He deposed that Shop No. 25 & 26 were exclusive and independent as per the approved plan. THE area of Shop No. 26 was 9.35 sq. meters. Sh. Nanda, Ex. Engineer was also associated with the scheme which was implemented by the division under his present charge. THE plinth area of Shop No. 25 is 28.41 sq. meters and of Shop No. 26 it is 9.35 sq. meters and both the shops were mutually exclusive and independent of each other. THE walls between Shop No. 25 and 26 have been constructed as per the approved plan. THE built up area and open area have been separately planned and implemented at site. THE possession of Shop No. 25 measuring 28.41 sq. meters was taken over by the auction purchasers, Sh. Pradeep Chadha and Smt. Madhu Chadha on 11.12.89. No dispute was raised by the auction purchasers while taking over the possession of the shop. Sh. Krishan Lal, Director (Slum) in DDA has stated in his affidavit that he was the auctioner in the auction held on 18.10.89. Shop No. 25 was auctioned in that auction. The plinth area of the shop was announced at the time of auction as 28.41 sq. meters as per the schedule. This area included 9 sq. meters for the kitchen. Shop No. 26 was not included in the schedule for auction. The respondent, DDA, also submitted a copy of Order No. 288/Vig./90 dated 29th August, 1990 issued by the Vigilance Branch of DDA and signed by Sh. M.O. Gupta, Finance Member, DDA. As per this order the case against Sh. Ram Kumar, UDC, Commercial Estate, DDA was under investigation and Sh. Ram Kumar was placed under suspension with immediate effect.

Arguments were heard at length and we have examined the record of case file and additional record submitted by the respondents, Delhi Development Authority, (DDA), during the course of the proceedings. This pertains to the details of costing of the Scheme under reference and the Bid Register for the period 25.9.89 to 5.1.90, which contains details of various auctions held by DDA in different localities, including the one held on 18.10.89 wherein the complainants purchased a Halwai Shop No. 25, subject matter of the present complaint.

THE main issue to be resolved, in the present case is whether the respondent has given less area, as alleged by the complainants who were successful bidders for Halwai Shop No. 25 and whether the respondent has further carved out an area of approximately 12 sq. meters, given less to the complainants, and renumbered that area as Shop No. 26 after creating walls after the auction and after the complainants had paid the entire consideration amount. Shri Ram Murti Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent, brought to our notice on 22.10.90 during the cross-examination of Shri Pradeep Chadha, one of the complainants, and later during the course of the arguments that the complainants had filed a Civil Suit No. 147/90 on 26.2.90 in the Court of Shri A.S. Yadav, Senior Sub-Judge for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disposing off Shop No. 26 vide order dated 19.3.90, the defendants were asked to maintain status-quo. Shri R.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the complainants submitted that the suit of injunction did not come in the way in deciding the present complaint. While agreeing with the learned counsel for the complainant we find it hard to overlook the fact that the complainants had made no mention of the foregoing facts in their complaint dated 21.3.1990 and had deliberately suppressed the facts pertaining to the Civil Suit for perpetual injunction instituted by them. Accordingly we held that the complainants have not come before us with clean hands.

BRIEF facts of the case are that auction of 17 built up units at Community Shopping Centre (CSC) GH-13, Paschimpuri, G-17 on perpetual lease hold basis was held by DDA on 18-10-1989. Shop No. 25, Halwai Shop, was held for which the complainants, Shri Pradeep Chadha and Smt. Madhu Chadha were the highest bidders was one of these 17 built up units. At the time of auction the area of Shop No. 25 was shown as 28.41 sq. meters and reserved price as 5,78,000/-. Shop No. 28 was also listed for auction at the same time. The area of Shop No. 28, atta chakki was listed as 12.81 sq. meters and reserve price given as Rs. 66,900/-. It was auctioned for Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lacs). The built up areas auctioned on 18.10.89 were part of Scheme No. 1234 prepared by respondent, DDA, in August 1986. As per this scheme there were 28 built up areas on the ground floor and 12 built up areas on the first floor, a total of 40 built up areas. Out of these a total of 17 built up areas were auctioned on 18.10.89. 12 of these, including Shops No. 25 and 28 were on the ground floor and five were on the first floor. The respondent produced in evidence a statement dated 24.10.89 bearing the signature of Sh. D.S. Mankotia, Accounts Officer (Works) III (Page 69) about the outcome of auction of built up units of the CSC at GH-13 Paschimpuri, G-17 held on 18.10.1989. This statement lists area of each built up unit, its use, reserve price, ground rent and bid amount. Area of court-yard is not given for any of these built up units, referred to as shops, auctioned on 18.10.1989. Area of Shop No. 25 is given as 28.41 sq. meters in this statement. The learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that letter of possession dated 23.11.89, issued to the complainants by the Commercial Estate section of lands department of DDA had attached a layout plan of Shop No. 25, showing the location of court-yard, kitchen and shop, the total area shown in the layout plan is 28.41 sq. meters. The complainants did not protest on receipt of the possession letter that the area being given to them was less. They visited the site on 29.11.89 and took possession on 11.12.89. even at the time of taking over possession they registered no protest that they were given an area which was short by 12 sq. meters as alleged by them. The area in the bid form signed by the complainants had been left blank as it was understood that the area was as per the details given in the cyclostyled leaflet distributed at the time of auction, which showed this to be 28.41 sq. meters. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that if the complainants had purchased more area than that shown in the information leaflet distributed at the time of auction, which the complainants had contended was got corrected and more area added by making an announcement on the microphone at the time of auction, the complainants should have filed the details of the area in the bid form instead of leaving it blank.

IN the demand notice issued by the DDA on 19.10.89 under heading particulars of allotment at Serial No. 4 area in sq. meters shows the entry 28.41 + 18.00 (cy) + 9.00 kitchen. This has been signed by Dy. Director (C.E) DDA. Sh. Ram Murti Goyal, the learned counsel for the respondent pleaded that there was a collusion between the complainant and the dealing clerk in the respondent DDA''s office. He submitted a bid Register on 22.10.90 in support of his contention. This bid register contains details of auction of built up units for the period 25.9.90 to 5.1.90 at various locations including the one that is subject matter of the present complaint The learned counsel averred that the entry of an area of 18 sq. meters as cy (Court Yard) and 9 sq. meters as kitchen was made later by the dealing clerk. On examination we note that the entry is in different ink and different handwriting, and appears to have been made later. A thorough examination of the register has also revealed that though several halwai shops have been auctioned in various areas, in no other case has the area of kitchen been shown separately. Undoubtedly all the halwai shops have kitchens and the total area of the halwai shops is inclusive of the kitchen. IN the present case 28.41 sq. meters is also inclusive of the kitchen. The argument about the collusion of the complainant with the dealing clerk is further reinforced by the fact that Sh. Ram Kumar, UDC, Commercial Estate, DDA was placed under suspension vide Order No. 288/ Vig./90 dated 29th August, 1990, issued by the Vigilance Branch of DDA.

THE bid register also showed that the area of court-yard was not indicated in any of the 17 built up areas (shops) auctioned on 18.10.89, though all the shops had court-yards as given in the details of costing submitted in evidence by the respondent. THE plinth area for Shop No. 25 is shown as halwai Shop 6.23 x 3.115 = 19.41 and kitchen 3.00 x 3.00=9.00 total 28.41 sq. meters. Sh. R.K. Mehta, the learned counsel for the complainants argued that the demand-cumallotment letter issued by the respondent DDA, on 19.10.89 (Ex C-3) has shown under serial G-4, area in sq. meters, an entry "28.41 + 18 cy + 9 kit" which is signed by Dy. Director (C.E), DDA. The possession letter dated 23.11.89, (Ex C-5) has the site plan attached to it, which shows a total area of 28.41 and Shop No. 26 on the East. The complainants visited the site on 29.11.89 and took possession on 11.12.89. They did not register any protest either on receipt of possession letter or at the time of taking possession that they have been given less area. The learned counsel for the complainant also brought to our notice, conveyance deed-allottee (bidder) (Ex C-9) where shop no. 25.... consisting of 28.41 +18.00+9.00 sq. meters has been shown. We note that on page 2 of the conveyance deed the boundaries of the property are shown as under:- North Shop No. 28 East Shop No. 26 South Corridor West _ _ _ _ If there is a disparity between the measurements given in the title deed and the area worked out on the basis of the boundaries given therein, the later must prevail (see: Kali Saran Nanak Chand v. Hari Ram and Others, A.I.R. 1958, Punjab 13).

We have examined original drawings of the scheme prepared on 1986. During the course of the examination the learned counsel for the complainant observed that there was some over-writing. We were, however, not convinced with this observation. The scheme contained a total of 40 built up areas, called shops. Of these 28 shops were on the ground floor and 12 shops were on the first floor. At the time of auction on 18.10.89 Shop No. 28 was also auctioned. If DDA had carved out a portion of Shop No. 25 as alleged by the complainant and given it a new number it could possibly have been numbered as 25A as Shop No. 26 was already in existence.

THERE is overwhelming evidence to prove that Shop No. 26 was already in existence at the time of auction. No area of Shop No. 25 has been carved out by the respondent DDA after the auction as alleged by the complainant. The complainant had filled out an area of 28.41 sq. meters in the bid form and signed the bid form and the conditions pertaining to the auction on the day of auction. At no stage did he register any protest either at the time of taking the letter of possession or at the time of taking possession of the shop. The complainant cannot take advantage of a lapse on part of DDA where in the demand-cum-allotment letter area of the shop has been shown wrong as 28.41 sq. meters +18 sq. meters (cy)+ 9 sq. meters kitchen. There is no merit in the complainants plea that civic amenities did not exist and water and electricity were not available in the premises allotted to them. It is well-known that allottees obtain water and electricity connections in their own name after allotment of the shop. The respondent gave no objection certificate to the complainants on 23.11.89 to enable them to obtain water and electricity connections in their own name.

THE complainants have no one else to blame, but themselves for the alleged loss of earning of Rs. 10,000/- per month from the business which they had proposed to start w.e.f. 1.1.90. This is the price they had to pay for their greed in attempting to obtain an additional area of about 9 sq. meters through dubious means claiming it to be a portion of Shop No. 25. In view of aforesaid discussion and over- whelming documentary evidence, we hold that the complainants have been given possession of the area of Shop No. 25 as per their bid and they have no claim to any additional area, i.e., Shop No. 26, which they claim had been carved out of the area of Shop No. 25. Shop No. 26 was already in existence at the time of auction and was part of the original scheme. The complaint is dismissed as misconceived with Rs. 2,000/- as costs. The costs would be paid to the respondent within a period of two months from the date of this order. Before parting with the judgment we would like to express our displeasure and strong disapproval about the fact that in case of lapses due to acts of omission or commission on part of the staff of DDA resulting in disputes and/or litigation, it is generally the staff at the lowest level who is penalised. In the present case it was the duty of the Dy. Director (C.R) who signed the demand notice issued by DDA on 19.10.89 to have personally verified that the area and the amount due, as given in the demand notice were both correctly entered. He should have made an endorsement on the office copy that he has personally checked these vital details before signing the demand letter. The responsibility is not only of the individual who prepares these documents but equally of the one who is at a higher level and signs them. The middle management and higher management cannot be absolved of the blame of such lapses, which bring bad name to DDA and erode its reputation. We direct that suitable guidelines be issued by DDA for fixing responsibility at higher levels and these be strictly enforced. Complaint allowed.