Ashish Sharma v. Delhi Development Authority

1. Atthe outset,thelearned counselforthe petitioner submitsthatthere is a typographical error^in the name ofthe petitioner. It is described as "Anand Sharma"butis actually"Ashish Sharma".He statesthatthis aspect was taken note ofby this courtin its order dated 03.05.2019.The affidavit s^insupportofthispetitionerisalsoofoneMr.AshishSharma.Thepetitioner mayfile amended memo ofparties.

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondentDDAto refundthe sum ofRs.22lakhstothe petitionertogether with interest.

3. The case ofthe petitioner isthatthe petitioner waslooking for some propertyfortheresidence ofhisfamilyinDelhi.Oneperson bythe nameof Sh.Prem Shankar Sharma introduced himself as an employee of DDA 2020:DHC:3923 p wherein he is working as Assistant Director. He offered to help the petitionerto buyaplotinEastDelhion Govt.ratesfixed byDDA without having to go through the process ofauction. A plot was offered to the petitioner which was to cost Rs.1.25 crore having market value ofmore thanRs.5crores.Thereafter,certain documentsallegedto have beenissued by DDA allotting the plot in favour of the petitioner for a total consideration ofRs.1.25 crore was handed over to the petitioner with two challans,oneforRs.13,90,000/-and otherforRs.8,10,000/-to bedeposited with DDA for allotment ofthe said plot. The amount was also deposited towards the stamp duty. The petitioner deposited the said amount of Rs.13,90,000/- and Rs.8.10.0000/- with DDA vide Challan No.219210 dated20.09.2011 withthe CentralBankofIndia,Vikas Sadan,New Delhi.

4. After making payment ofRs.22lakhs to DDA,the petitioner visited the office ofthe respondent DDA for making further paymenttowards the cost of the plot alleged to have been allotted to him by the respondent DDA.The petitioner learntthata fraud has been played on him bythe said persons and all the documents,allotment letter, challans were never issued by respondent DDA. The petitioner has filed an FIR No.70 dated ^8.03.2013 withtheEconomic Offences Wing,DistrictCrime&Railways, Delhi.Itis stated thatthe police hasnotconcludedthe investigationfor one reason orthe other.

5. The petitioner visited the office ofthe respondentDDA on numerous occasions for reftmd ofamount ofR.22 lakhs deposited by the petitioner but no result has beenfound.

6. On 27.08.2018,the petitioner moved an application under RTI Act seeking information in respect ofsaid Rs.22 lakhs. The respondent DDA n vide its reply dated 17.10.2018replied to the petitioner thatthe said amount ofRs.22lakhs deposited bythe petitioneron20.09.2011 is appearinginthe cash bookin NazulAccount-II.Hence,the presentpetition.

7. Ihave heardlearned counselforthe parties.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent DDA has strongly opposed the present writ petition. He has taken me through the FIR lodged by the ■ petitioner subsequenttothe alleged fraud where he has admitted thathe has made paymentfor"unofficial expenditure".He also admits that the market price ofthe land is approx Rs.[5] crores but it was to be made available to him only ofRs.3.25 crores.Itis pleaded thatthe entire transaction is on the face of it a fraudulent one in which the petitioner was co-conspirator. Hence, this court should not assist the person who is indulging in such illegal acts himself.

9. In my opinion, what transpires is that the petitioner is a victim of fraud played upon him.In his enthusiasm,he booked a house and parted with large amount of money including Rs.22 lakhs to DDA. The said amountadmittedlyhasbeenreceived byDDA.The amountdoesnotbelong to DDA and has not been paid for pursuant to any service rendered or Consideration given byDDA.The petitioner already being a victim offraud should not be further burdened with further loss and damage.DDA cannot unjustly enrich itselfin this manner.

10. Inthe facts and circumstances,in myopinion,the petitioner would be entitled to refund ofthe said amount ofRs.22 lakhs, which is lying with DDA.Itis ordered accordingly.

11. DDA will refund the said Rs.22 lakhs to the petitioner within eight weeks from today. 1/1-

12. Nothingforthersurvivesinthispetition.Thepetitionisdisposedof. Allpendingapplications,ifany,arealsodisposedof. DECEMBER24,2020/v JAYANT NATH,J. y