* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No.99/2008
SHARWAN KUMAR KANOJIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr.J.R. Bajaj with Mr.D.R.Bhatia,
Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . ..... Respondent
Through Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
ORDER
10.07.2008
1. The appellant seeks to challenge dismissal of his writ petition by the learned single judge. The appellant was registered with the respondent-DDA under Ambedkar Avas Yojana, 1989 (AA Yojana) for SC and ST. The appellant deposited Rs.8,000/- as registration money for an LIG flat. Subsequently, the appellant wide his application No.0020623 opted for a flat under Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995. He was allotted an expandable flat No.148, Second Floor, Pocket-3, Type-A, Block-E in Dwarka (Bindapur) through computerised draw held on 1st August, 1995. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him directing to make payment between 15th and 30th May, 1995 as per the schedule mentioned therein. The appellant failed to pay the demanded amount and therefore DDA issued a a show cause notice to him on 7th August, 1996. Since the appellant failed to deposit the cost of the flat, allotment of the EHS flat stood cancelled automatically as per the terms of the allotment. Vide letter dated 23rd February, 1998 the appellant applied to the DDA for refund of the registration money. On the examination of the said application of the appellant, nothing was found refundable to him as the amount to the credit of the appellant was Rs.14,271/- (Rs.8,000/- towards registration money + Rs.6,271/- interest on registration money) whereas cancellation charges as per the terms and conditions of EHS was Rs.15,000/-. Intimation in this regard was sent to the appellant on 30th September, 1999. It appears that subsequently by mistake DDA issued a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 27/31.12.1999 to the appellant for an LIG Flat in Rohini. The appellant deposited Rs.3,46,942.82 on 29th February, 2000. On realization of the mistake, DDA cancelled the allotment vide letter dated 10th September, 2001 and the appellant was directed to seek refund of Rs.3,46,942/-. The said letter was challenged in the writ petition.
2. After hearing both the parties, learned single Judge concluded as follows:
"The petitioner had opted for allotment under the Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995 and was admittedly allotted a flat in Dwarka. With registration and after opting for the Expandable Scheme, the earlier registration under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1989 did not survive. Thereafter, the petitioner did not make any payment for the flat under the Expandable Scheme and vide letter dated 23rd February, 1998 applied for refund of the registration money. Thus, the petitioner was no longer interested in allotment of a flat from DDA. By letter dated 30th September, 1999 the petitioner was informed that no amount was refundable as under the Expandable Housing Scheme, 1995 the petitioner was liable to pay cancellation charges of Rs.15,000/- and the registration money as well as interest accrued thereon had been forfeited. The effect thereof was that petitioner's registration with DDA was cancelled and did not survive. He was no longer registered under any Scheme. He was not on the waiting list. Contractual relationship between the petitioner and DDA came to an end. The petitioner thereafter could not have been allotted any LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1989. A wrong allotment was made to the petitioner. It also appears that pursuant to the wrong allotment the petitioner made payment of Rs.3,46,942.82 to the DDA. I do not find any error/mistake in the stand taken by the respondent-DDA that the petitioner cannot be allotted a LIG flat once his registration/allotment was cancelled. However, the respondent-DDA has continued to retain Rs.3,46,942.82 which was paid by the petitioner. There was no reason or cause to retain the said amount or even to ask the petitioner to furnish documents as suggested vide letter dated 10th September, 2001. Respondent-DDA should have realised it's mistake and immediately refunded the amount paid by the petitioner. The respondent-DDA shall refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,46,942.82 to the petitioner along with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 1st May, 2000, till payment. The said payment will be made within a period of three weeks from today. The date, 1st May, 2000, has been fixed as the starting point, as payment of Rs.3,46,942.82 was made by petitioner on 30th March, 2000 and DDA should have realised it's mistake and refunded the payment within one month."
3. In light of the above finding, the learned single Judge directed the respondent-DDA to refund the amount deposited by the appellant with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f 1st May, 2000. We do not see any ground to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned single Judge. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.MURALIDHAR
JULY 10, 2008 (JUDGE)
"v"