Mrs. R. Vijaya Lakshmi vs Delhi Development Authority And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 739 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This writ petition is in respect of allotment of flats by DDA for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) category under the 6th Self-Financing Scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the scheme and in particular paragraph 5 thereof provides for a reservation of 25% of the flats for the persons belonging to SC/ST category, the draw of flats ought to have been done not in a composite manner but after segregating 17.5% for SC applicants and 7.5% for ST applicants. Paragraph 5 of the said scheme reads as under:-

"RESERVATION:

The following percentage of reservation will be made:

(i) 25% of the flats for the persons belonging to SC/ST

(ii) 1% of the flats for physically handicapped persons

(iii) 1% for war-widows

(iv) 1% for ex-servicemen.

Delhi Development Authority, however, reserves the right to make other reservations for any other category/categories.

If the requisite number of applications are not received from the above mentioned reserved categories, the flats will be offered to the persons registered in non-reserved categories."

2. Mr Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the aforesaid paragraph clubs SC and ST applicants together and reserves 25% of the flats as a composite category, the general policy of the Government was to segregate the 25% into 17.5% for SC applicants and 7.5% for ST applicants. He submits that the reason for this was that if it were not so, then the overwhelming number of SC candidates might lead to a result where ST applicants don't get the desired number of reserved flats. In connection therewith learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an affidavit filed by DDA in CW1512/1988 as well as an affidavit of DDA filed in CW167/1990 which are at pages 21 and 94 respectively of the Paper Book. Although these affidavits are in respect of allotment of shops, they do indicate that DDA had considered and accepted the position that 25% of the allotment of shops be distributed amongst SC and ST applicants in the break-up of 17.5% and 7.5% respectively. In fact, in the affidavit of DDA which has been filed in CW167/90 in paragraph 5 itself the DDA admits that separate reservations for SC and ST applicants was unobjectionable in principle but was likely to confront the DDA with the problem of undisposed flats in one category or the other. Anyhow, it seems that after due consideration of the matter, the DDA in its 9th Self-Financing Scheme in 1996 itself recognised this bifurcation and explicitly provided for 17.5% flats for persons belonging to SC and 7.5% for applicants belonging to ST category. The relevant paragraph under the 1996 scheme is as under:-

"5. RESERVATIONS

Details of reservations under the Scheme are as given below:-

(i) 171/2 % of the flats for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes.

(ii) 71/2% for applicants belonging to Scheduled Tribes.

If adequate number of applications are not received from applicants belonging to ST category, remaining flats shall be disposed of in favor of applicants belonging to SC category and vice-versa.

(iii) 1% for war widows

(iv) 1% for physically handicapped persons; and

(v) 1% for ex-servicemen

If requisite number of applications are not received from the above mentioned five categories, all remaining flats will be offered to the persons of non reserved categories."

3. This petition was filed prior to the issuance of 9th Self-Financing Scheme in 1996. This petition was filed in 1993 when the 6th Self-Financing Scheme was in operation. However, it would be relevant to note that when the petition was filed on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 18.03.1993, this Court had directed the respondent to reserve one flat as per the petitioner's option. That flat has been kept reserved till date. It is an admitted position that the flats were ready for occupation in 1993 itself. Had the petitioner, who belongs to ST category, been granted or allotted the flat, she could have moved into the flat in 1993 itself. Thereafter, the DDA has not carried out any other development or construction activity in respect of the flat that has been reserved for the petitioner. On 15.12.2000 and 08.08.2001 this Court had directed the respondents to consider the entitlement of the petitioner and to report to the Court the result thereof. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent DDA considered the entitlement of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that as a special case, it has been decided to allot a flat to the petitioner at the current cost and that the proposal had also been duly accepted by the Vice-Chairman and Lt. Governor, who is the Chairman of the DDA. This fact is recorded in an application filed on behalf of the DDA supported by an affidavit of Sh. D.B. Gupta, Commissioner (Housing), DDA dated 25.01.2002. That affidavit unfortunately is not on record but the counsel of both the sides have admitted the same and there is no dispute with regard to the making and filing of the same and a copy thereof has been handed over to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA. The same is taken on record.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is now apparent that the flat that has been reserved for the petitioner as far back as on 18.03.1993 by an order of this Court is now to be allotted to the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to this. The only question is with regard to the question of cost to be paid for the said flat by the petitioner. The counsel for the DDA submitted that the flat should be allotted at the current cost whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it should be allotted at the cost originally advertised in the brochure for the 6th Self-Financing Scheme. In view of the fact that the flat had already been completed in 1993 itself and was ready for occupation and also that the DDA has done nothing further towards development or building with regard to the said flat, it would be just, fair and equitable if the allotment of the said flat is made to the petitioner at the same cost as charged from the other allottees under the same scheme. In this regard, the Supreme Court has also in writ petition (Civil) 1048/1989 in the case of Ms Mithilesh Verma v. Vice-Chairman, GDA, UP and Anr., decided on 30.07.1990 allowed allotment of a flat to the petitioner therein which has earlier been kept reserved on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the other allottees. A division bench of this Court also in the case of J.S. Rao (Prof.) v. DDA & Anr., reported in 2001 AD (DELHI) 235 held as under:-

"As SFS flat of similar nature has been kept reserved for the petitioner pursuant to interim orders passed by this Court. It is brought on record that the project for which the applications were invited in 1989 and 1990 were completed in the year 1992. The petitioner filed his applications for allotment of flat in 1989 & 1990 and the said project as against which he filed his applications came to be completed in the year 1992 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the price of the flat prevailing in the year 1992."

5. As such, it is directed that the petitioner be allotted the flat that was reserved for her at the original cost as advertised and as was charged from the other allottees under the same scheme. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.