Yashoda Devi vs D.D.A
2008 Latest Caselaw 1191 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) 2239/2007

%                      Date of Decision: 30.07.2008


      YASHODA DEVI                      ..... Petitioner
                           Through:    Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate

                     versus

      D.D.A.                           ..... Respondent
                           Through:    Ms. Manika Tripathi, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
   may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be                  No
   reported in the Digest?


VIPIN SANGHI, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner was registered under NPRS 1979 for

allotment of one LIG flat under Scheduled Caste quota. Her priority

number was 131. The petitioner was allotted a flat in Jhilmil, Delhi.

She was not interested in accepting that allotment and consequently,

surrendered the same and paid Rs.3200/- as cancellation charges. In

the year 1991, the petitioner was made an allotment of one LIG flat in

Nand Nagri. Admittedly, the allotment letter was sent at a wrong

address and was consequently, not received by the petitioner. The

petitioner approached the respondent in the year 2003 upon learning

of the issuance of the allotment letter on a wrong address. On

15.07.2008 the respondent issued letter to the petitioner stating that

the petitioner's request regarding allotment of the LIG flat has been

accepted by the competent authority and the petitioner shall be

allotted one LIG flat in the same zone at the rates prevalent at the time

of original allotment. The petitioner was thereafter issued a demand-

cum-allotment letter with block end date 30.10.2006 in respect of the

draw of lots held on 24.11.2004, wherein the petitioner was allotted

flat No.541, Second Floor, Pocket-5, Mayur Vihar. The respondent

demanded Rs.10,80,181/- towards initial deposit and balance was

payable in instalments. Aggrieved by the cost of the said flat

demanded by the respondent, the petitioner has filed this petition.

2. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the respondent could not have charged interest on the original cost.

She submits that at the relevant time the policy of the DDA which

covered cases where allotment letters had been sent at the wrong

address, did not provide for charging of any interest. Reliance has

been placed on the policy contained in précis dated 20.12.2002 Item

No.108/2002 on the subject "Cost to be charged in the cases of double

allotment and in the cases where demand cum allotment letters sent

on wrong addresses to the allottes F.21(Misc.)9/Int/HAC/ 2001".

Paragraph 3 of the said précis reads as follows:

"3. Now the proposal is to charge only the old cost of the allotted flat in cases where demand letter has been sent at wrong address. In case the original allotted flat has been cancelled and some other flat is to be given than old cost will mean charging the same plinth area rate of construction and same land rate prevailing at the time of original allotment.

Besides since there is a financial loss to DDA, responsibility will be fixed of the concerned officials."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent

by deliberately delaying the issuance of the demand-cum-allotment

letter after holding of the draw (which was held on 24.11.2004) could

not rely upon their new policy to impose interest @ 12% p.a. which was

introduced on 25.05.1995 vide office order No.F-2(13)96-

COORGN.P.Pt.1. She also relies on the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)

No.12874/2006 "Harbans Lal Chakravarti v. Delhi Development

Authority" decided on 04.04.2007 and W.P.(C) No.636/2007 "Kiran

Arora v. Delhi Development Authority" decided on 09.07.2008.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that at the time when the draw of lots was held, the

formulation of the new policy was under consideration and

consequently, the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued after the

new policy dated 25.02.2005 had come into force.

5. In my view, there is merit in the submission of the

petitioner that the respondent could not have invoked its changed

policy brought into force on 25.02.2005 in respect of the petitioner's

case. Admittedly, the policy prevalent since 2002 was that in such like

cases where demand letters were sent to the wrong address, the

allottees were not being charged any interest and the allotment was

being made at the cost, which was prevalent at the time when the

priority of the allottee matured. This policy continued to remain in

operation at the time when the communication dated 15.07.2003 was

issued and even thereafter, till the time when the draw of lots was held

in which the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid flat. Once the

petitioner had succeeded in the draw of lots, the respondent could not

have held back the demand-cum-allotment letter merely to await the

formulation of the new policy. In any event, the new policy could not

have been given retrospective effect and the same could only operate

prospectively it being an administrative decision of the respondent.

The proposition finds support from the decisions cited by the

petitioner.

6. I, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondent

DDA to raise fresh demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the

aforesaid flat in favour of the petitioner on the basis of the cost

prevalent in the year 1991 when the priority of the petitioner matured.

In case there is any excess area in the flat compared to the area of the

flat allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991 of which demand-cum-

allotment letter was sent at the wrong address, for the additional area

the petitioner would pay the rate prevalent in the year 2004 when the

draw was held. The fresh demand-cum-allotment letter should be

issued by the respondent within four weeks.

7. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

JULY 30, 2008 rsk