* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 849/2012
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
versus
SANTOSH KUMARI KHANNA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 22.02.2013
1. The respondent before us obtained registration with the appellant DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS-1979) for allotment of an MIG flat. The residential address disclosed by the appellant in the application form was 6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, where she was residing at that time. Two occupational addresses were also given by her - one of the place where, he was working as a teacher at that LPA 849/2012 Page 1 of 5 time and from where she retired on 29th April, 2002 and the other of the place where her husband was working at that time and where he still continues to work.
2. In September, 1989, the respondent changed her residential address to C-1/46, Malka Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, but did not intimate the change of address to the DDA. On the priority accorded to the respondent maturing, she was allotted an MIG flat by the DDA and a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 29.12.1999 - 31.12.1999 was sent to the residential address disclosed in the application form. Since the respondent had already shifted from there, the aforesaid letter could not be delivered. No attempt was made by the appellant DDA to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to the occupational addresses given by the respondent. In July 2011, the respondent came to know that all the registrants in NPRS-1979 had been made allotment. On making enquiry from DDA, she was informed that an MIG flat was allotted to her in September, 1999 and the allotment was cancelled due to non- payment of the balance consideration. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the allotment made to her. LPA 849/2012 Page 2 of 5
3. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 12th April, 2012, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to hold mini draw of lots for allotment of flat to the respondent and charge cost of the flat prevalent at the time of original allotment along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of original allotment, till the date of issue of new demand-cum-allotment letter. In passing this order, learned Single Judge took the view that since the demand-cum-allotment letter sent at the residential address had been received back undelivered, it was incumbent upon the appellant to send the said letter to the occupational addresses of the respondent available in its record. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.
4. Vide order dated 21.12.2012, a limited notice was issued by this Court limited to the extent as to whether the cost to be paid by the respondent should be as per the rate of the year 2011. The learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the respondent is ready to pay the cost of the flat as on 18th November, 2011 when the writ petition was filed. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the cost as prevalent on the date when the impugned order was passed by the learned LPA 849/2012 Page 3 of 5 Single Judge should be paid by the respondent. We find ourselves unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for two reasons - firstly, the notice issued to the respondent being limited to payment of cost as per the rates of the year 2011, no direction can be passed in this appeal for payment of cost prevalent on the date when the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, there is no justification for saddling the respondent with the increase in the cost of the flat between the date of filing of the writ petition and the date on which the impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition became necessary on account of an unreasonable stand taken by the appellant, which, despite representation from the respondent did not make any allotment to her. Therefore, no blame can be apportioned to the respondent for the increase in the cost between the date of filing of the petition and the date when the petition was allowed.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is disposed of with the modification that the respondent shall pay the cost of the flat as on 18th November, 2011, the date on which the writ petition was filed by her. The allotment in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be LPA 849/2012 Page 4 of 5 made with four weeks from today.
CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 22, 2013 'raj' LPA 849/2012 Page 5 of 5