JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Rule. With consent of the parties the matter was heard for final disposal. Since common questions are involved, the petitions were heard together.
2. The writ petitioners in these cases were registrants in the New Pattern Registration Scheme (hereafter referred to as "NPRS") formulated by the DDA in the year 1979. In both the cases allotments were issued upon maturing of their priority; in WP No. 22657/05 it was made in the year 1989 and in WP No. 4066/06 the allotment was made in the year 1999. However, both the petitioners complain that they did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter since such letters/intimations were dispatched to old addresses. It is claimed that the petitioners had duly intimated to the DDA about their respective change of addresses but in stead of dispatching the demand-cum-allotment to the new addresses, they were sent to the old addresses. As a result, they could not comply with the demand and the allotments were cancelled.
3. The petitioners further state that recently they approached the DDA and it indicated that they would be entitled to restoration and their names would be placed in the draw of lots. In these circumstances, they have approached the Court claiming for relief. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Counsel contends that the petitioner in WP NO. 22657/05 is entitled to the benefit of the latest policies of the DDA including the circular dated 12.04.05 which prescribes that wherever the allottee is not at fault the interest to be charged would be 7 per cent per annum in addition to the original old rates. In this case, the petitioner had been allotted a flat in 1989; the DDA had indicated that he would be granted a fresh allotment as per the old cost by its letter dated 15.06.04. His name was, however, included in the draw of lots held on 07.04.05; The DDA noticed that the allotment of the flat was under a mistake since it had earlier been allotted to someone else. Subsequently, the petitioner's name was again included in the draw of lots held on 10.05.05.
4. It appears that the previous policy of the DDA prevailing in the year 2004 (the time when a decision was taken to charge old cost) was to require the allottee to pay only the old cost without payment of interest. The relief claimed in these proceedings is for a direction to the DDA to issue the demand-cum-allotment letter in accordance with the policy formulated on 25.05.05
5. The material portion of the policy dated 25.05.05 is as follows:
1. In cases, wherein change of address was intimated by the registrant but erroneously not recorded by DDA and thereby demand letters were sent at wrong/old address and the allottee approaches DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, he/she shall be allotted flat at the the old cost, prevalent at the time when the priority of allottee matured and the allotment letter issued, and no interest will be charged. The allotment will be made at old cost subject to following:
(a) He should approach DDA within a period of four years from the date of issue of demand letter at the wrong address.
(b) He should have proof of having submitted a request for change of address to DDA duly signed by the allottee himself/herself i.e. proof of receipt at DDA counter.
(c) He should have documentary proof of change of address viz. Ration Card/Election Card/Identity Card/Passport Etc. (Duly attested by the Gazetted Officer).
2. In cases, where such an intimation has been made but the allottee has not approached the DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, the allottee shall be considered for allotment of flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of original allotment + 12% simple interest w.e.f. the date of original allotment till the date of issue of fresh Demand-cum-Allotment Letter.
The same principle will be applicable in the cases of missing priority cases.
6. It is urged that the DDA acted unreasonably in delaying the entire process; having decided to allot a flat at the old cost on 15.06.04, it could not have slept over the matter and included the petitioner's name on its whims and fancies and then sought to impose new policies which required him to pay a much higher cost inclusive of interest @ 12% per annum. Learned Counsel in addition to the pleadings also urged that the petitioner would in any case be now entitled to the benefit of another subsequent policy formulated on 12.04.06 whereby the Lieutenant Governor directed that simple interest could be charged at 7 % in case where the allottee was not at fault, in stead of the existing notified rates.
7. In WP (C) 4066/06, the petitioner's intimation about change of address, it is alleged, was not heeded to and as a consequence when the allotment letter was issued in 1999 he could not comply with it, leading to the cancellation of the flat. It is also claimed that the petitioner approached the DDA on 22.12.03 and was asked to report time and again, but nevertheless the DDA has not taken any final decision.
8. Mr. Anil Sapra and Mr. Ajay Verma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent stated that as per the decision in Surender Kumar Mehta (WP (C) 19095/04 decided on 19.12.04) the DDA had decided to charge 12 % interest wherever the allottees intimated earlier but could not comply with the demand-cum-allotment letter on account of change of address. It was submitted that the decision to charge interest at 12 % provided the allottee approached the DDA within four years, applied uniformly because wide publicity had been given from time to time, especially, in 1996-1997 about the maturing of priority and, as a result, even though there might have been some fault on the part of DDA initially, in issuing letters of allotment at old addresses, such registrants could not be blameless.
9. The above factual matrix which is more or less similar in the two cases (except for the period of delay which is lesser in WP NO. 4066/06, since the petitioner had approached the marginally maturing beyond the period of four year) ; the DDA appears to have accepted its fault in both the cases, as is evident from the documents and pleadings, and decided to restore the allotment, but at old cost. The only question,therefore, is whether the petitioners are justified in claiming that they are entitled to the benefit of the policy of 14.04.06 directing the DDA to charge only 7 % interest.
10. In my opinion, on an over view of the facts of these cases the the DDA cannot be faulted in claiming 12 % interest on application of its policy dated 25.02.05. This is because in WP (C) 22657/05 the petitioner appears to have approached the DDA only sometime in the year 2004; after verification of his claim the DDA decided to restore the allotment subject to the old cost which was prevailing in the year 1989. In these circumstances, I do not see any force in the arguments that there was an unreasonable delay in including the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held on 07.04.05. If the petitioner could have awaited for about 15 years to approach the DDA, the delay of 8 months is hardly consequential, particularly, when his application for restoration was accepted. The petitioner also approached this Court in 2005 claiming that the cost to be charged should be on the basis of the policy dated 25.05.05. In these circumstances, I see no special equities which ought to impel this Court to direct the DDA to charge a lower rate of interest. Accordingly, the DDA is directed to issue fresh demand-cum-allotment letter on the basis of old cost and charge 12 % interest up till 10.05.05, or charge current cost prevailing as on 10.05.05 whichever is lower.
11. As far as the second case is concerned, (namely, WP (C) 4066/06), although the period of delay in approaching the DDA is less, in principle, I see no substantial difference. The petitioner, no doubt waited for 20 years; his priority matured in 1999. It is not disputed that he, like all the other registrants was duly intimated about the maturity of his respective priority from time to time. In these circumstances, in the absence of any explanation as to why he took more than four years to approach the DDA, I am of the opinion that the findings here ought not to be any different. Here again, the DDA is directed to include the petitioner's name in the draw lots which shall be done within six weeks from today. The price to be charged would be old cost i.e. the cost prevailing when the original demand-cum-allotment letter was issued on 30.07.99 with interest at 12 % per annum till 01.04.05 in the same locality as was originally allotted in 1999, if available.
The DDA shall file a compliance affidavit at the earliest and in any case not later than eight weeks from today.
The writ petitions and all the CMS are disposed off in the above terms.