LOKESHWAR PRASAD ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the present writ petition assails demand notice No. 1544 dated the 26th March, 1992 (Annexure P-10), issued by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DDA ), demanding a sum of Rs. 4,56,587/ - from the petitioner and subsequent reminders dated the 5th June, 1992, 27 th August, 1992 and 4th October 1993. ( 2 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner purchased an industrial plot, bearing No. C-3, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-l, measuring 1210 sq yard in an open auction held by the DDA on 30th March, 1974 for Rs. 70,000. 00 as a partner of M/s International Refrigeration Industries. After completion of usual formalities the possession of the above said plot was handed over to the petitioner by respondent DDA on 21 st June, 1977. Since then the plot in question is in possession of the petitioner. However, lease deed in respect of the same has not been executed by the respondent DDA so far. Vide impugned demand notice (Annexure P-10), the respondent DDA has demanded a sum of Rs. 4. ,56,587. 00 from the petitioner as per details given below:- (i) Penalty for non-construction of building from 21. 6. 80 of 20. 2. 92. Rs. 3,84,434. 00 (ii) Penalty for non-submission of lease deed papers. Rs. 54,648. 00 (iii) Ground rent from 21. 6. 77 to 20. 6. 82. Rs. 17,505. 00 Total Rs. 4,56,587. 00 ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the claim of the DDA is wholly malafide and without any basis whatsoever. It has been prayed that a writ of certioraris or any other writ or order or direction quashing the impugned demand notice and reminders dated 5th June, 1992, 27th August, 1992 and 4th October,1993, issued by the respondent DDA, be issued by this Court. ( 4 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondent DDA who has filed reply to the show cause notice. In the reply filed on behalf of the DDA, the purchase of the plot in question by the petitioner and handing over the possession of the same to the petitioner on 21th June 1977 has been admitted. ( 4 ) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the respondent DDA who has filed reply to the show cause notice. In the reply filed on behalf of the DDA, the purchase of the plot in question by the petitioner and handing over the possession of the same to the petitioner on 21th June 1977 has been admitted. In the reply affidavit, it has been stated that the papers pertaining to the lease deed alongwith the original site plan wee sent to the petitioner by the DDA on 27th January, 1983 for the purpose of getting the papers stamped from the Collector of Stamps. But the lease deed papers have not been returned, duly stamped, by the petitioner so far. it is stated that in the absence of the papers it was not possible for the DDA to execute the lease deed. The DDA in its counter has further stated that the petitioner, apparently is not interested in getting the lease deed registered as it would have become incumbent upon The petitioner to carry out the construction immediately and set up an industry on the said plot. it is contended that the petition, filed by the petitioner, be dismissed with costs. ( 5 ) THE petitioner filed a rejoinder to the counter filed by the DDA, controverting the contentions raised in the counter and reiterating the averments made in the petition. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties as length and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record. Further with a view satisfy ourselves, we called upon the respondent DDA to produce the records relating to plot in question. Accordingly, the respondent DDA produced the records before us through its counsel which we have also perused. ( 7 ) AS already stated the challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, is to the Notice dated 26th March, 1992 (annexure P-10) issued by the respondent DDA asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,56,587. 00. From a perusal of the above said document (Annexure P-10) it is apparent that th DDA has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,84,434. 00 as penalty for non construction of building from 21st June, 1980 to 20th February, 1992. Admittedly the possession of the plot in question have handed over to the petitioner by the DDA on 21st June, 1977. From a perusal of the above said document (Annexure P-10) it is apparent that th DDA has claimed an amount of Rs. 3,84,434. 00 as penalty for non construction of building from 21st June, 1980 to 20th February, 1992. Admittedly the possession of the plot in question have handed over to the petitioner by the DDA on 21st June, 1977. In so far as the above aspect is concerned, the case of the petitioner, is that after taking over possession of the plot the petitioner submitted to the respondent DDA plans for construction of a building on the aforesaid plot which were approved/sanctioned by DDA vide letter No. 3 (21)/ 78/1695 dated the 1st April, 1978 (Annexure P-2 ). The DD in its center too has admitted the correctness of the above fact i. e. the sanction of he plans vide its letter dated 1st April, 1978. It is further the case of the petitioner that according to the sanctioned building plan the petitioner constructed a part of the building which was sufficient to run a small scale industry. The petitioner has also stated that for the purpose of construction on the plot, the petitioner got cement from the Food and supply Department of Delhi Administration. The petitioner has annexed a copy of order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Food and Supplies, Delhi Administration for supply of 160 bags of cement to the petitioner as Annexure P-1. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking also sanctioned and installed electricity connection as per certificate dated 31st Marc, 1977 (Annexure P-12 ). It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner, in respect of the construction raised on the above said plot, has been paining house tax amounting to Rs. 10,000. 00 in respect of the aforesaid construction vide receipt No. 949045 dated the 13th January, 1993 (Annexure P-16 ). IN the counter filed by the DDA the above facts, as averred by the petitioner in the petition, have neither been controverted nor denied. In the presence of the above facts there appears to be hardly any justification in the demand raised by the DDA as penalty for non construction of building from 21st June, 1980 to 20th February, 1992 amounting to Rs. 3,84,434. ( 8 ) THE DDA vide impugned demand notice (Annexure P-10) has also demanded a sum of Rs. 54,648. 00 as penalty for non submission of the lease deed papers. 3,84,434. ( 8 ) THE DDA vide impugned demand notice (Annexure P-10) has also demanded a sum of Rs. 54,648. 00 as penalty for non submission of the lease deed papers. The case of the petitioner is that the lease deed papers despite repeated requests have not been forwarded to him by the DDA whereas the contention of the DDA is that the lease deed papers alongwith original site plan were sent to the petitioner vide letter dated 27th January, 1983 for the purpose of getting the papers stamped from the collector of Stamps but the papers have not been returned duly stamped by the petitioner so far. In the counter the DDA has admitted the receipt of letter dated the 19th March, 1991 (Annexure P_8) from the end of the petitioner. From a perusal o1 the file produced by he respondent DDA, relating to the disposal of the plot in question, it is apparent that on record there is a copy of letter dated 27th January 1983 forwarding there-with four copies of unsigned perpetual lease deed forms is respect of he plot in question with the request that the same be got stamped for the Collector of Stamps and returned to the office of DDA within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. In the first place the above said communication dated the 27the January, 1983, purported to have been sent by the DDA to the petitioner, is addressed to Sh. Ram Parkash and Mr. Kedar Nath Babar and not to the petitioner alone. Moreover, no records i. e. dispatch register etc. showing he actual dispatch letter dated 27th January, 1993, wee produced before us for our perusal and in the absence of any such records it cannot be conclusively stated that the above sail letter was actually despatched by the respondent DDA and received by the petitioner. From a perusal of the above said file, it is further apparent that after 27t January, 1983, no steps were taken by the DDA for the registration of the lease dee as a matter of fact, being the lessor, it was the bounden duty of the DDA to have take further action in the matter in the even of failure on the part of the petitioner to compl with the directions contained in letter dated 27th January, 1983. The above said letter clearly states that the papers were to be returned to the office of DDA within 15 dayand in case the same wee not returned to the office of the DDA within the above said stipulated period, action was to be taken to cancel the allotment/auction by the DD which was never taken for reasons best known to DDA. The above commission the part of the DDA gains significance in view of the terms and conditions governing the aution relating to the plot in question. Condition No. VI of the above said condition specifically provides that after the payment of the balance of the premium and other amount payable, the lease deed would be executed and would be duly registered and thereafter the possession of the plot would be handed over to the intendian purchaser. Thus in terms of the conditions, governing the auction, the execution the lease deed was to take place before the delivery of the possession of the plot the petitioner. However again for reason best known to the DDA, the concern authorities of the DDA handed over the possession of the plot in question to the petitioner on 21 st June, 1977 without execution of any lease deed and its registration. In view of the above discussion, the above claim of penalty for non submission of the lease deed also does not appear to be tenable. ( 9 ) THE DDA, vide impugned notice, has also claimed another sum of Rs. 17,505/ - on account of ground rent of the plot question from 21st June, 1977 to 20th June, 1982 i. e. of the first 5 years. So far as the above aspect is concerned condition No. III of the terms and conditions governing the auction of the plot in question and agreed to by the petitioner and also by the representative of the DDA, is or utmost significance. The same runs as under:- "iii. GROUND RENT: (1) In addition to the premium the intending purchaser of the leasehold rights in the plot shall to pay an yearly ground rent. The ground rent will be at the rate of Rupee one per plot per annum farther first five years and thereafter will be at the annual rate of 2 1/2 per cent of the amount of the premium. The ground rent will be at the rate of Rupee one per plot per annum farther first five years and thereafter will be at the annual rate of 2 1/2 per cent of the amount of the premium. (2) The ground rent will be enhanced after every 30 years provided that the increased in the rent fixed at each enhancement shall not at each such time exceed one-half of the increase in the letting value of the plot without buildings at the date on which the enhancement is due. " ( 10 ) IN terms of the above condition the petitioner is liable to pay ground rent @ Rs. 1 per annum for the first five years. The possession of the plot in question, as already stated, was handed over to the petitioner on 21st June, 1977. The demand is for the period from 21st June, 1977 to 20th June, 1982 i. e. for the first five years. In view of the above condition agreed to by the petitioner it does not appeal to reason as to how the respondent DDA has calculated the ground rent to the extent of Rs. 17,505. 00 for the period of first five years, which in terms of the above condition should have been only Rs. 5. 00. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion, in our opinion, the impugned notice (Annexure P-10) and the subsequent reminders dated the 5th June, 1992, 27th August, 1992 and 4th October, 1993 are not liable to sustain this test of judicial scrutiny an dare liable to be quashed. The petition is therefore allowed. The impugned notice (Annexure P-10) and the three subsequent reminders, issued by the DDA are hereby quashed. However, the DDA is given the liberty to raise a fresh demand against the petitioner in respect of the plot in question as per its policy in such like maters keeping in view the above observations made by this Court. It is further directed that on completion of formalities by the petitioner, the DDA will supply another set of unsigned perpetual lease deed forms together with site plan to the petitioner who will have the same stamped from the office of the Collector of Stamps, Delhi within 15 days from the date of receipt and would thereafter submit the same in the office of DDA for having the same registered. After the execution and registration of the lease deed, in the manner stated above, the petitioner shall submit the original title deed to the competent Authority under the urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 for taking necessary action in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the above said Act. ( 12 ) WITH the above observation, the petition stands disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case no order as to costs.