1999 (3) TMI 641 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of auction of a plot in a green-belt area.
2. Acceptance of bid and communication of acceptance.
3. Application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act.
4. Entitlement to an alternate plot or compensation.

Issue 1: Validity of auction of a plot in a green-belt area
The Supreme Court examined the legality of an auction conducted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a plot situated in a green-belt area. The Court held that the plot, being in the green-belt, should not have been put up for auction due to public interest considerations. The Court emphasized that there is no estoppel against statute, especially when public interest is at stake.

Issue 2: Acceptance of bid and communication of acceptance
The Court found that the acceptance of the bid by the Vice-Chairman of DDA was invalid for two reasons. Firstly, the acceptance was recorded after a High Court interim stay order, even though it was in the process of being communicated. Secondly, the DDA failed to communicate the acceptance to the respondents, rendering the acceptance incomplete. The Court clarified that mere knowledge of acceptance recorded on the file does not constitute valid communication.

Issue 3: Application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act
The respondents argued for the application of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, claiming that a right had accrued in their favor due to the acceptance of the bid. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that no transfer or grant had occurred, and the acceptance of bid at an auction does not constitute a transfer of property. The Court concluded that the respondents had no legal basis to support their claim under Section 43.

Issue 4: Entitlement to an alternate plot or compensation
The respondents sought relief in the form of an alternate plot or compensation due to the auction proceedings. The Court held that the respondents were not entitled to an alternate plot in the same locality and at the same price after a significant lapse of time from the auction date. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order directing an alternate plot, and ordered the return of the deposited amount with interest to the respondents. No costs were awarded in the case.