NEW DELHI, OCT 18: The Supreme Court has held that land falling in green-belts cannot and should not be put to auction by development authorities as serious public interests were involved in it.Nullifying an auction made by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of a land falling in the green-belt in Kalkaji area in South Delhi, a division bench said "on the date of the auction the plot being in the green-belt, could not and should not have been put to auction."Writing the judgement for the bench, Justice R C Lahoti directed DDA to return the money deposited by one Ravindra Mohan Aggarwal who had bid for the land with nine per cent interest since 1985 when the auction took place.Aggarwal had participated in the auction and made a bid of Rs 3,25,000 for the plot which was the highest. He then deposited 25 per cent of the bid amount, Rs 81,250 with DDA and the bid was placed before DDA vice-chairman who was the competent authority to accept or rescind the bid.Meanwhile, a public interest litigation was filed in the High Court challenging 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 its use as a green-belt.The High Court had stayed the auction but the DDA vice-chairman, without the knowledge of the stay order, approved the auction.The High Court in its August 1991 order refused to grant any relief to Aggarwal as far as the green-belt plot was concerned but held that he was not to be faulted for making a bid at the auction.It directed the DDA to give a plot to the bidder of the controversial plot an alternative site of equivalent measurement at the same price in Kalkaji outside the green-belt within two months. The DDA appealed against this order in the Supreme Court.Lahoti said the acceptance of the bid recorded by the DDA vice-chairman was bad for two reasons. One, it was recorded after the passing of the interim order of stay by the High Court though it was in the process of being communicated.Secondly, the acceptance was not communicated by the DDA to the bidders and therefore the acceptance was not complete."Merely because the respondents gathered knowledge of the acceptance having been recorded in the file would not make any difference."Acceptance of a bid at a public auction and deposit of 25 per cent of bid amount do not constitute a transfer of property," Lahoti said.He said "even the equitable considerations would not justify a public authority like DDA being directed today to provide an alternative plot to the respondents in the same locality and at the same price after a lapse of 14 years from the date of auction."
