Shadi Lal Sikka vs Delhi Development Authority
1996 Latest Caselaw 933 Del

JUDGMENT

R.C. Lahoti, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to allot a flat to the petitioner within a reasonable time consistently with the terms and conditions of its Fourth Registration Scheme on New Pattern - 1979, as evidenced by Annexure P-1.

(2) In the year 1979, the respondent Dda floated a scheme known as Registration Scheme on New Pattern - 1979 (hereinafter - 'the scheme', for short) formulated with the object of reducing the sale price of M.I.G., L.I.G. and Janta flats so as to bring it within the reach of the common man and providing for construction of flats so as to make them available for such persons. The scheme opened on 1.9.1979 and closed on 30.9.1979. On 19.9.1979, the petitioner was registered under the scheme having deposited an amount of Rs.1,500.00 and was issued certificate assigning the registration No. 11098.

(3) The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been waiting ever since 1979 but has not been allotted a flat until the year 1993 when the petition was filed. To the surprise and disappointment of the petitioner, he has been informed that his priority/ seniority number was 47,186 and, therefore, he shall have to wait for allotment until the number of flats available for allotment touch the number of priority assigned to the petitioner.

(4) According to the petitioner, he has learnt that there were only about 16,000 persons registered under the scheme while 26,446 persons have been allotted the flats. There is no reason why the petitioner could not have been allotted a flat by this time.

(5) The respondent Dda has denied all the material averments made in the petition and explained the reason why the petitioner could not be allotted a flat in spite of the delay which has taken place. It is pointed out that 1.7 lakhs persons got themselves registered for allotment of flats under the scheme. It was practically impossible to construct and allot such a large number of houses at one time. The Dda is taking up construction of the houses in a planned manner and allotting the same consistently with availability. Upto the year 1985, the procedure adopted by the Dda was to include the names of all the eligible registrants in the draw of lots, held from time to time, and then pick up the successful registrants for allotment. This procedure was unwieldy as the names of thousands of persons had to be included in the draw as against hundreds of flats available. In the year 1985, the Dda took a policy decision whereby a priority list was prepared by holding a draw of lots in the presence of eminent persons. Since 1985 and onwards, the allotment of flats is being made strictly in accordance with the seniority's available in the priority list prepared in the year 1985.

5.1It is further pointed out that clause 9 of the scheme provided for all the registrants under the scheme being assigned an equal seniority. Therefore, there was no other option available with the Dda but to prepare an order of priority/seniority by holding a draw of lots.

5.2It is further pointed out that there were 67,502 persons in the L.I.G. category to which the petitioner also belongs. Upto 1.12.1993, 27,711 allotments have been made. Petitioner's priority number 47,186 is yet to reach. This is a situation which the respondent Dda cannot help.

(6) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no relief can be allowed to the petitioner in exercise of our writ jurisdiction for several reasons to be stated hereinafter.

6.1Firstly, the petitioner is confusing between the registration number and the priority number. His registration number was 11,098 but his priority number is 47,186 consequent to a draw held for drawing up a priority list out of 60,502 registrants of L.I.G. category who otherwise enjoyed an equal seniority. Registration No. 11,098 being relegated to priority No. 47,186 is merely a matter of chance and freak of divine. The petitioner has to rest contended by what the luck has chosen to assign him at the draw.

6.2 Secondly, the action of the respondent,DDA cannot be found fault with where thousands and lakhs of persons were all claiming similar seniority under the scheme, then the respondent Dda had to assign some formula for the purpose of drawing up a priority/ seniority list. This the Dda has done by holding a draw of lots in the presence of eminent persons. It may be stated that the bona fides and correctness of the draw so held are not under challenge.

6.3Thirdly, the priority list was prepared in the year 1985. Ever since then, for a period of 8 years upto the date of filing of the petition and for more than 11 years by this time, the respondent Dda has .pa held several draw of lots of available flats and made allotments consistently with the priority/seniority list drawn in 1985. Permitting a challenge now to the priority list drawn up in the year 1985 would upset all the allotments made during the period of last 11 years and also upset the priority numbers assigned to several other persons waiting for allotment who are not before us in this petition. This will totally upset and make tops terse a system that has been working for over 11 years by now.

(7) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheelawati v. Dda - 1995 (32) Drj 404, para 41, that the scheme drawn up by the Dda is binding on it and it cannot ex parte change its terms and conditions. We are satisfied that the respondent Dda has not changed any of the terms and conditions of the scheme. It has merely devised a way of accommodating an unexpected large number of registrants under the scheme. The method adopted by the Dda appears to be reasonable. There is nothing wrong or arbitrary about it. The petitioner has to wait for his seniority number to reach the number of available flats.

(8) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is held -devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is dismissed accordingly, though without any order as to the costs.