$~22
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 588/2012
Judgment Delivered on: 27.8.2012
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
versus
KRISHAN LAL ..... Respondent
Through Nemo CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW A.K. SIKRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE: (ORAL)
1. The admitted facts are that the respondent had applied in 1979 for an LIG Flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (NPRS 1979). A tail end draw was held under the LIG category on 27.9.2007 as per which the respondent was allotted a flat bearing No. 362, Sector B-2, Pocket-D, Group-1, Ground Floor, Narela, Delhi. However, no demand/allotment letter was issued by the DDA and which came to be issued only on 04.02.2010. In LPA 588/2012 page 1 of 3 this letter, the DDA asked the respondent to pay interest as well @ 7% w.e.f. 1.4.2008 till the date of issue of the demand/allotment letter impugning the said demand for interest, the writ petition was filed.
2. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has in the aforesaid facts, held that when it was the fault of the DDA in not issuing the demand/allotment letter immediately after holding the tail end draw and which was issued only on 4.2.2010, there was no cause, occasion or justification for the DDA to ask for interest from 1.4.2008 till 17.2.2010.
3. Obviously, after the draw of lots in which a specific flat was allotted to the respondent, it was for the DDA to issue demand/allotment letter as well. If the DDA has delayed issuing the said demand/allotment letter, the liability to pay interest cannot be fastened upon the respondent/allottee.
4. We find in para 5 of the impugned order that the learned Single has also made observation to the effect that the DDA could at best have charged the cost as prevalent on the expiry of four months after the date of tail end draw i.e. 27.9.2007. These observations would not be correct in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushpendra Kumar Jain, 1994 Supp. (3) SCC 494. In any case, nothing turns on that as that was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. We LPA 588/2012 page 2 of 3 are concerned only with the validity of the action of the DDA in charging the interest from 1.4.2008 till the date of issue of demand/allotment letter. As held above, interest could not have been charged in the given circumstances.
5. We thus, do not find anything wrong or blemish in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW) JUDGE AUGUST 27, 2012 skb LPA 588/2012 page 3 of 3