The common issue arising for consideration in these appeals is with regard to the claim for payment of interest on refund of the amount which had been deposited by the appellants with the respondent – Delhi Development Authority to avail the benefit of the construction based on additional FAR. Towards consideration of the said application for grant of interim relief to permit sanction of Revised Plan so as to enable construction and completion, the appellants offered to deposit the disputed amount being the amount demanded towards additional FAR charges which had been assailed in the writ petition.
We take note of the order dated 31.10.2013 in the case of the appellant in first of the appeals herein, whereby the High Court having extracted the earlier order had disposed of the writ petition.
In that view, an application was taken out by the said appellant herein on the aspect relating to interest and had sought refund of the amount with the interest at 15% per annum.
Niranjan Reddy, learned senior counsel for the respective appellants, Shri Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel, and Ms. (2003) 8 SCC 648 with specific reference to paras 26 and 28 is placed to emphasize the principle of restitution whereby the parties are put to the same position and to contend that no one shall suffer by an Act of the Court which was considered and applied in the said case for the benefit of grant of interest.
In the writ petition, it is recorded that notice was issued to the respondents and insofar as the application for interim order it would indicate that the notice was accepted by the counsel for the respondents therein but there was no hearing of both sides, in that sense.
It would be relevant to extract the portion as contained in the order relating to deposit of the amount: “The petitioner states that he will deposit the disputed amount but in case excess amount is found to be deposited at the stage of final decision in the writ petition, the same should be refunded to the petitioners by the respondents with appropriate interest.
If the said aspects are kept in view and the nature of the issues raised before the High Court in the writ petition is taken note of, the prayer in the writ petition was for quashing the demand dated 09.03.2010 raising the demand for Rs.7,67,79,600/-.
Therefore, in the present facts as on the date when the writ petition was filed and the petitioner had voluntarily offered to deposit the amount, the amount was to be paid and recoverable under the notification dated 10.10.2008 and 23.12.2008 if the benefit of additional FAR was to be availed. In that view, when as on the date the deposit was made, the notification remained valid and even subsequently there is no declaration that the notification and the demand made is illegal, but through the subsequent notification an exemption has been granted by the respondents themselves to a certain category of institutional plots to avail additional FAR without levying such charges, it is not the case where any of the principles enunciated in the above-noted decisions would apply herein.
Even though in the interim order dated 07.05.2010 passed by the High Court there is an indication that the question of refund of amount with interest would be examined at the stage of conclusion of the writ petitions, in the circumstances as has unfolded and noted above, when there was no adjudication and determination with regard to the right of the appellant and a declaration that the amount was illegally demanded and retained by the respondent, either the direction to pay interest or to compensate in any other manner for the pendente lite period would not arise. Apart from the fact that the appellant in the second of the appeals has failed in the proceedings before this Court in an earlier SLP insofar as the pendente lite interest, in view of the conclusion above, the same would apply to their case as well and for the subsequent period they may avail their remedy.
(C) No.2823 of 2010 before the High Court and as to whether such retention has caused loss to the appellant and conversely the benefit derived from the same by the respondent, if any, and the manner in which the same is to be compensated or not as also the rate at which it is to be done are matters which would have to be considered in appropriate proceedings and in accordance with law wherein the parties will avail all opportunities to put forth their contentions and place material. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms, without any order as to costs.
Case Title: LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL TRUST Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Case Number: C.A. No.-005647-005647 / 2023
