Delhi High Court
Smt. Harpyari Sodani vs Dda on 24 September, 2002
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the
parties petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. The petitioner was applicant for allotment of
category III flat in IX SFS Scheme, 1996 and in
pursuance to his application was declared successful in
the draw of lots held on 31.12.1996. An intimation to
this effect was sent to the petitioner vide letter
dated 13.1.1997.
4. The petitioner, however, did not receive the
demand letter though she came to know that other
persons who had bee successful in the draw of lots had
received the allotment letter in April, 1997. The
petitioner claimed to have made enquiries and found out
that the case of the petitioner was of double
allotment. The petitioner in March, 1998, also
deposited the cost of the flat of Rs. 14,63,700/- after
deducting registration amount of Rs. 15,000/-. All the
relevant documents were forwarded by the petitioner in
April, 1998 and the conveyance deed was forwarded on
27.5.1998. Petitioner finally took possession of the
flat No. 64, Pocket I & II, Sector-3, Dwarka, and the
conveyance deed was finally executed on 30.3.2000.
5. The petitioner addressed a letter dated
12.10.2000 making a grievance of the fact that in the
same locality of the same type of flat, lesser amount
had been charged in pursuance to the
allotment-cum-demand letter sent to persons who were
successful in the draw of lots in which petitioner was
declared successful.
6. The petitioner did not receive any reply and
thereafter filed the present petition seeking direction
against the respondent to charge only the original cost
of the flat and to refund the excess amount.
7. In the counter affidavit the facts are more or
less admitted. It is, however, stated that in view of
the detection of the double allotment, the allotment
letter was finally sent on 11.3.1998 and that is why
higher cost was charged from the petitioner.
8. The only submission advanced by learned counsel
for the respondent is that the petitioner would not be
covered by similar cases of double allotment in as much
as no allotment letter was issued in the case of the
petitioner and that the respondent is entitled to
charge the price prevalent at the stage of issuance of
the allotment letter as held by Supreme Court in the
case of DDA v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain JT 1994(9) SC
292.
9. I am unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the respondent. The question of
application of the ratio of DDA v. Pushpendra Kumar
Jain's case (supra) would arise where the allotment
letter was issued after some period of time to all
allottees. The said judgment cannot be used to
discriminate between persons who are successful in the
same draw of lot and where the only reason why the
allotment was not issued to the petitioner was on
account of double allotment. In my considered view the
case of the petitioner would squarely fall within the
category of double allotment case and it is now settled
legal proposition that in such a case cost to be
charged is the cost prevalent when similarly situated
persons were issued the allotment-cum-demand letters.
The fact that no allotment letter was issued in favor
of the petitioner would not make difference in the case
of the petitioner. It may be noted that the issue of
double allotment has been considered in recent judgment
in CWP 299/2002, R.K. Sachar v. DDA decided on
13.9.2002 and it has been held that the allottee is
entitled to the flat on the original price.
10. It may, however, be noted that at the relevant
stage of time the petitioner had paid the amount and
thereafter protested about the same. The consequence
of this would not be that the petitioner cannot now
claim refund of stamp duty. Petitioner, however, would
be entitled to the refund of the difference in cost
between the what was charged from the petitioner and what
was charged from similarly situated allottees who were
successful in the draw of losts held on 31.12.1996 when
net amount of Rs. 12,45,833/- was charged on the basis
of the total costs of Rs. 12,89,000/-. The petitioner
would also be entitled to interest on this amount at
the rate of 10% per annum from 1.11.2000 till date of
payment since the petitioner had made a representation
on 12.10.2000. The amount be so refunded to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
11. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
