Delhi High Court
Shri Trilok Kumar vs The Administrator, U.T. Of Delhi ... on 18 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 1059, 92 (2001) DLT 387, 2001 (59) DRJ 496
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J. (Oral)
Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction for allotment of a specific flat in Bhikaji Cama Place, in terms of allotment letter dated 10.2.1995. Consequential directions for handing over of possession are also sought. Petitioner also questions the non-intimation of the scheme of draw of lots for adjusting Nehru Place Allottes in Bhikaji cama place. Alternatively, the petitioner demands compensation for the escalation in cost and prices to enable him to acquire comparable accommodation in Bhikaji Cama Place. He, therefore, prays that the amount paid be refunded with market rate of interest duly compounded.
2. The petitioner, an advocate by profession, had applied under the SFS Commercial Flat scheme No.1 For allotment in the year 1984. The petitioner paid in all a sum of Rs.4,82,830.05 (rupees four lacs eighty two thousand eight hundred thirty and paisa five only) towards the demands made by the respondent from time to time. At the time of booking the petitioner had indicated his first preference for a commercial flat at Nehru Place, second preference was indicated as Bhikaji Cama place. Unfortunately, the prestigious project of constructing the commercial flats at Nehru Place was abandoned by respondents due to what is claimed as "unavoidable circumstances". With the abandonment of multi-storeyed building at Nehru Place, the entitlement of the Petitioner for allotment would naturally fall to the second preference at Bhikaji Cama Place. The petitioner claims that the respondents should have given preference to those, who had indicated their preference for Nehru Place while considering the allotment of flats at Bhikaji Cama Place. Far from giving any preference, the allotment according to the petitioner of flats at the Bhikaji Cama Place was done in an arbitrary manner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that curiously out of 62 flats, 33 allotments were made to those who had opted for Bhikaji Cama Place as first preference. In the next draw of lots, 19 allotments out of 29 were made. The petitioner's name was included in these two draw of lots, but was not successful.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that his original booking was for type-II flat at Nehru Place having an area of about 73-74 sq. meters. The respondents considered the petitioner and other three persons who had registered for the Nehru Place flats, for allotment of type-II flats at Bhikaji Cama Place. Counsel for the petitioner states that there was no comparable flat at Bhikaji Cama Place with the type-II flat booke at Bhikaji Cama Place. The petitioner's complains of arbitrary manner of draw of lots and the draw being conducted in the manner which put the petitioner at a disadvantage.
5. Be it may, the petitioner was not successful in the draw of lots at Bhikaji Cama Place also. Petitioner, therefore, contends that for no fault of his the petitioner has suffered. Not only this, he submits that the respondents failed to disclose any unavoidable circumstances which led to the cancellation of the Nehru Place Project. This has not bee done despite directions of the court.
6. During the course of proceedings of this writ petition, various options for an amicable resolution were considered. Respondents were able to offer a commercial flat to the petitioner only at Janak Puri. Petitioner is not willing to accept the same.
After some arguments counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents directed to refund the amount deposited by him together with interest. Mr.V.K. Sharma, counsel for the respondent submits that the respondents would have no objection to the return of the amount paid with interest @12% p.a., which is the prescribed rate under the scheme applicable, when possession of the flat is delayed. Petitioner on the other hand claims that thee DDA itself is charging 18% for delayed payment and the same rate should be made applicable.
7. Considering the facts of this case, where there has been no default on the part of the petitioner and it was the respondents own decision to abandon the project at Nehru Place. Further the respondents were not able to accommodate the petitioner for allotment of commercial flat even at his second preference i.e. at Bhikaji Cama Place and also considering the escalation in the price of commercial properties since the time of booking in 1985, I am of the view that interest of justice would be met if the respondent/DDA is directed to refund the amount with 16% interest per annum from the date of the last Installment till the date of payment. Let the amounts together with interest as aforesaid be refunded within 8 weeks from today. Ordered accordingly.
8. Writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.
