The interim order though passed earlier was brought to the knowledge of the Vice Chairman, DDA after the authority had signed its approval of the bid on the file.
However, it held that the respondents companyld number be faulted for having made a bid at the auction and inasmuch as an expectation has been built up in their favour of having a plot in face of acute shortage of land in Delhi, the DDA was directed to give a plot to the respondents of equivalent measurement at the same price in the same area adjoining the area in question, i.e., Kalkaji within a period of two months from the date of the order.
The High Court by its order dated 1.8.1991 refused to grant any relief to the respondents so far as plot number 13 is companycerned.
The authority then stayed its hands in view of the High Courts order.
Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the abovesaid direction of the High Court, the DDA has filed this petition for special leave to appeal before this Court.
The authority companypetent to accept or number the bid was the Vice Chairman of the DDA before whom the papers were placed.
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi seeking a direction to the DDA to companyclude the auction sale proceedings and handover possession of the plot to the respondents.
The facts relevant and material for the disposal of this appeal are that the plot on the date of the auction was situated within the green belt and hence companyld number have been put to auction by the DDA ii that the sale was number finalised inasmuch as the same was stayed by the High Court in a public interest litigation iii that the authority companypetent to accept the bid recorded its acceptance at a point of time when the High Court had already stayed the same though the order of the High companyrt was number till that point of time brought to the numberice of the authority iv that the acceptance of the bid was never companymunicated by the DDA to the respondents v that the tendered amount was 25 per cent only of the bid amount.
The respondents made a bid of Rs.3,25,000/ which was the highest.
It appears that a public interest litigation was filed by a third party laying challenge to the auction companyplaining that the plot was situated in green belt and therefore companyld neither have been treated as a developed plot number put to auction for any purpose other than use as a green belt.
The officer companyducting the sale knocked down the bid in favour of the respondents.
The High Court found that the plot being situated in the green belt, companyld number have been put to auction at all.
With the fall of hammer, the respondents deposited an amount of Rs.81,250/ being 25 per cent of the bid amount.
The High Court had issued an ad interim writ staying the auction.
The balance 75 per cent was yet to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner and vi that it was only in the year 1994 that the zonal plan was modified to alter the use of the plot to residential purpose.
C. Lahoti, J. A plot bearing number 13 of site number58 on Kalkaji Road, Delhi admeasuring 162 sq.mtrs.
with two sides open was put to auction on 5.2.1985 holding it out to be a developed plot by Delhi Development Authority.
