TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 641
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ondents deposited an amount of ₹ 81,250/- being 25 per cent of the bid amount. The authority competent to accept or not the bid was the Vice-Chairman of the DDA before whom the papers were placed. It appears that a public interest litigation was filed by a third party laying challenge to the auction complaining that the plot was situated in green-belt and therefore could neither have been treated as a developed plot nor put to auction for any purpose other than use as a green-belt. The High Court had issued an ad-interim writ staying the auction. 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. The authority then stayed i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....time when the High Court had already stayed the same though the order of the High court was not till that point of time brought to the notice of the authority; (iv) that the acceptance of the bid was never communicated by the DDA to the respondents; (v) that the tendered amount was 25 per cent only of the bid amount. 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. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the auction never achieved a finality. No right much less a vested right had accrued in favour of the respondents. The High Court was therefore not just....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was not communicated by the DDA to the respondents and therefore the acceptance was not complete. Merely because the respondents gathered knowledge of the acceptance having been recorded on the file would not make any difference. Reliance on Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act is entirely misconceived inasmuch as there was no transfer or grant ever made by the DDA in favour of the respondents. Acceptance of bid at a public auction and deposit of 25% of bid amount do not constitute a transfer of property. The respondents have no basis in law to support their claim. Even the equitable considerations would not justify a public authority like DDA being directed today to provide an alternate plot to the respondents in the same locality ....