Delhi High Court
Amar Nath vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 November, 2006
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner claims a direction to the Respondent (hereafter the "DDA") to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter for the flat allotted to him on the basis of cost prevalent as on the date of draw i.e 9.6.2005.
2. The petitioner, a Registrant of the NPRS Scheme, in the MIG category, framed by DDA was allotted a flat in 1999. The demand-cum-allotment letter was dispatched to a wrong address. The petitioner, therefore, approached the DDA, in July, 2004. Eventually his request for alternative allotment was acceded to and his name was included in a draw of lots held on 29.6.2005. He was allotted a flat being No. 741, Second Floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Dwarka. The allotment letter was issued on 31.10.2005; it indicated the cost of flat as Rs. 11,20,880/-. It is claimed that the cost sought to be recovered is arbitrary since in the vicinity, i. e. in respect of flat No. 773, (for which draw was held on 28.1.2005), the cost demanded was Rs. 8,43,920/-.
3. Mr. R.K. Saini, Learned Counsel submitted that the action of the DDA in issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter on 31.10.2005 is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was claimed that as per its existing policies, whenever the DDA is at fault, the allottee is entitled to benefit of restoration (of allotment) upon payment of old cost with interest, or the current cost whichever is lower. Learned Counsel submitted that if the DDA had issued the demand-cum-allotment letter within a reasonable time, (which could not have been more than three months), the current cost would have been in the same range as was charged for Flat No. 773. By not doing so and in delaying the matters, even though the draw of lots were held much earlier, the DDA acted unreasonably, to the petitioner's prejudice. This has resulted in discrimination because the petitioner has been asked to pay more than Rs. 2.5 lakhs in excess of the cost recovered from an identically situated allottee.
4. The DDA in its return has alleged that the original allotment cum demand letter was sent to the petitioner in July, 1999 at the address mentioned in the Registration Letter; yet it was returned undelivered. The allotment was, therefore, cancelled. The DDA also avers that after a delay of about five years, the petitioner, for the first time appeared in a public hearing in July, 2004 and agitated his grievance about the allotment letter having been dispatched to an incorrect address. The DDA disputes that the petitioner had ever applied for change of address. It is also averred that as per the policy formulated by it, if a registrant approached it within four years from the date of issuance of demand, sent to the wrong address and furnished documentary proof and complete necessary formalities, he would be entitled to allotment at the old cost. In this case since the petitioner had not approached within that stipulated period and has taken his own time, the DDA decided to restore the allotment subject to payment of old cost plus interest at 12%. That worked out to Rs. 11,20,880/-. It was further stated that the current cost, as on date of issuance of the demand cum allotment letter on 31.10.05 was Rs. 12,39,730/-.
5. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned demand cannot be termed as unreasonable merely because the letter demanding the amount issued on 31.10.2005. It was submitted that every case has to be seen from the perspective and the background of the peculiar circumstances. In this case, the petitioner had to blame himself since he made no attempt to seek restoration for five years. The DDA acceded to his request within a matter of 8-9 months. In the circumstances, the period of four months taken by it in issuing the demand cum allotment letter could not be called unreasonable.
6. The narrow factual dispute which requires resolution is as to whether the DDA acted unreasonably in issuing the demand cum allotment letter four months after the draw of lots. Something hinges on this because the cost of the flat apparently was revised with effect from 1.10.2005. If the demand cum allotment letter were issued within three months, possibly the amount would have been lower, more in the vicinity what was demanded in respect of Flat No. 773.
7. Counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in Jagdish Khanna v. DDA (WP(C) No. 397/2006 decided on 9.1.2006) where the Court has observed that three months would be a reasonable period to issue demand cum allotment letter.
8. I have considered the judgment in Jagdish Khanna's case (supra). There, the registrant, had changed his address some time in 1984; the Court took into consideration the impracticability of asking such persons to secure proof of change of residence, as existing two decades before they approached the DDA. The writ petitioner had approached the DDA on 3.7.2003 and there appeared to be an unreasonable delay in processing of the case. The demand cum allotment letter in that case was not at all issued even after the draw was held on 2.7.2004. If one sees the direction of the Court, issued in a petition filed in 2006, in the background of those facts, the observations that three months would be a reasonable period to issue demand cum allotment letter, would broadly be indicative of a guideline, which the DDA has to follow. It is not as if the Court laid down an inflexible thumb rule, incapable of variation. In the present case, the petitioner's request was processed and his name was included within less than nine months (of his approaching DDA) in the draw of lots; the demand cum allotment letter was issued barely four months later. The petitioner approached the DDA, on the other hand, with an unexplained delay of more than five years.
9. In addition to the above reasons, I have also considered the original file. The tentative cost was worked out some time in the middle of September, 2005 and an approval was granted to dispatch the demand cum allotment letter on 3.10.2005. The file does not show any intentional delay so that the benefit of upward revision in the rates could be charged from the petitioner. In these circumstances, there is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness on the part of DDA in issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter on 31.10.05; nor is the cost charged from the petitioner unjustified.
10. In case the petitioner has not paid the amounts demanded, in full or in part, the DDA shall permit him to do so, provided all amounts are paid within two weeks, with interest of 12 % p.a. on such unpaid amounts.
11. The writ petition is dismissed, but subject to the liberty granted in the preceding paragraph.
