Mr. Navpreet Singh Bhattal vs Delhi Development Authority ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 1861 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, A.C.J.

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge the appellant has preferred the present appeal before us. The learned Single Judge while holding that the case was covered by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Renu Bali v. Delhi Development Authority 2006 I AD (Delhi) 127 upheld the payment raised by the respondent/DDA vide their letter dated 8.7.2003 whereby the DDA had decided to allot a flat in Vasant Kunj on payment of current cost of the year 1999-2000 and interest @ 7% per annum (compounded) for later period till the issue of demand letter.

The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that in Renu Bali's case (supra) with regard to Self Financing Scheme the Court has laid down certain guidelines and directions for the DDA to recompute the cost payable by the defaulting allottees of South Delhi flats. Mr. Vijay Kishan Jaitley, counsel for the appellant has contended that paragraph 57, Sub-clause ii (b) is relevant which has been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. The same is to the following effect:

ii. (b) If the default is for more than one year and payment of the demanded amount towards the first four Installments is received prior to 22.8.1996 in that event restoration of allotment/regularisation of delay would be made on the basis of old cost with interest @ 18% per annum.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has vehemently contended that Renu Bali's case was considering the scheme of SFS of 1992, whereas, the appellant has applied for allotment under the Self Financing Scheme of 1982. To countenance the argument of the counsel for the respondent, our attention was drawn to paragraph 11 of Renu Bali's case, which reads as under:

The Delhi Development Authority issued an office memorandum on the subject of regularisation of delays in respect of flats allotted in South Delhi under the Self Financing Scheme on 16th August, 1996. The relevant part of the said office order is as follows:

Sub: Regularisation of delays in respect of the flats allotted in South Delhi under the SFS.

Under the present delegation of powers, delay in making payments of first 4 Installments as well as payment of 5th and final Installment are regularised as per following delegation of powers:

Director(H)-1- up to 3 months

Commr.- up to 1 year

Principal Commr. From 1 year to 1 1/2 year

V.C.- Full powers.

2. With the approval of L.G. a decision was taken that the current price for South Delhi Flats will be worked out by adding a surcharge of 20% from the price worked out as per old format. The approval of L.G. to this decision was granted on 12.7.1996.

3. There are presently cases in the Housing Department where there have been delays in the making of the payments of the flats allocated/allotted in South Delhi under S.F.S. Before the aforesaid revision took place, delays of one year or so were being regularised with usual charges, i.e. on payment of 18% interest per annum and restoration charges, etc. in few cases where delays are unusually long, current price has also been demanded.

4. With the revision aforesaid, a question has arisen whether delay should be got regularised or flats should be disposed of at current price since that can fetch perhaps some more revenue in few cases.

5. Matter has been considered and it is felt that non-regularisation of delays in deserving cases will be presented and, therefore, in the cases of those who have got allocation/allotments in South Delhi, if any time extension/regularisation is done as per above delegation of powers, then we may do so with the following condition:

Delay shall be regularised on payment of either current price or "oldG" price/usual charges, whichever is higher.

On the basis of the aforesaid it was argued that the Court was considering the regularisation of delays in respect of the flat allotted in South Delhi under Self Financing Scheme which was in general and not related to 1992 Scheme only.

The learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that although the present case is covered by the decision of the Full Bench in Renu Bali's case, however, sub-para (iii) of para 57 would be relevant to determine the cut off date. The same is reproduced below:

iii. When restoration of flat to South Delhi allottees is made by the Delhi Development Authority much prior to the date of issuance of final demand-cum-allotment letter i.e. two to three years prior to the date of issuance of such final demand-cum-allotment letters, in that event the date of restoration would be relevant and material for the purpose of determining the current cost and not the cost of issuance of the final demand-cum-allotment letter.

We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge fell in error while holding on the one hand that the case was covered under Renu Bali's case (supra) and not interpreted Renu Bali's case in terms of the directions issued in paragraph 57 Sub-clause (ii) (b) of the said judgment by the Full Bench of this Court. The admitted case of the parties as reflected in the impugned order was that four payments were to be made by the appellant to the respondent. The same are as under:

i. Rs.47,953.24 by 19.2.1984.

ii. Rs.49,600/- by 19.8.1984.

iii. Rs.62,000/- by 19.2.1985.

iv. Rs.49,600/- by 19.9.1985.

This is admitted fact that first three installments were paid by the appellant on 29.9.1986 and the fourth installment was paid on 28.10.1987. The only argument which has been advanced before us and which finds favor with the learned Single Judge was that these deposits were made without grant of any extension of time by the respondent. The learned Single Judge fell in error in not appreciating the averments made in the writ petition that the allotment was not made to the appellant and the appellant kept on making representations to the respondent and much later he was informed that the matter was being put up before Restoration Committee for restoration of allotment of flat in Sector-C, Pocket 5 at second and third floor in Vasant Kunj. The case of the appellant was put up before the Grievance Committee of the respondent at a highly belated stage on 19.1.2000 and 21.1.2000 and on that date the respondent restored the allotment of the flat to the petitioner. The respondent/DDA in its counter affidavit has taken the stand which is as under:

That in reply to sub para (xiv) of the writ petition it is stated that on the request of the petitioner, his case was placed before the Grievance Redressal Committee. The said committee in its meeting dated 21.1.2000 acceded to the petitioner's request for restoration of allocation. Thereafter, however, the main file of the case was not traceable despite several efforts. Under the orders of the competent authority, part file was reconstructed and the case was proceed, where after letter dated 8.7.2003 offering allotment was sent to the petitioner, which is a matter of record. It is submitted that since the restoration was affected in the year 2000, the cost prevailing in 1999-2000 was proposed to be charged with interest thereon @7% per annum (compounded). Since the petitioner was the party at fault in not depositing the demanded Installments in time, as per existing policy no interest was admissible on his deposits. The modified offer letter dated 22.8.2004 issued to the petitioner is also a matter of record. The correspondence sent by the petitioner are also a matter of record. Reply dated 14.10.2003 sent to the petitioner's letter dated 4.9.2003 is also a matter of record.

The crucial aspect of the matter which lost sight by the learned Single Judge was that when the payment was made in 1986 and the fourth Installment in 1987, then, why the case of the appellant was put up for restoration as late as in the year 2000. This is admittedly a glaring lapse on the part of the respondent and for the lapse of the respondent the appellant cannot be made to suffer by taking the advantage that the DDA has restored the allotment of the appellant in the year 2000, therefore, the DDA would be entitled to the cost on the basis of 1999-2000 and that aspect of the matter has been ignored resulting in the impugned order. It has also been submitted by the appellant before the writ court that 250 flats under the said category were ready and lying vacant. A list in that regard was also filed by the appellant before the writ court. Therefore, by judging from any angle no explanation has been placed on record by the respondent as to why it took 13 years long time in restoration of the flat when according to the brochure and conditions of the payment the payment of all the four Installments was made though with a delay of one year or so. This is despite the fact that the appellant kept pursuing the respondent vide letters dated 6.2.1990, 22.6.1991 and 12.5.1993 and the counsel for the respondent has not been able to offer any explanation as to why the restoration was not done even though demanded by the appellant time and again. This is not a case of a person who had delayed in making the payment rather this is a case where all the payments have been made by the appellant. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances we direct the respondent to restore the allotment to the appellant and payment would be made by the appellant on the basis of the old cost with interest @18% per annum. After payment being made by the appellant the respondent is directed to allot the flat in question within six weeks.

With these directions we set aside the order of the learned Single judge and allow the appeal with costs.

Rule is made absolute.