Naval Kishore Kamboj vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 1526 Del

37
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    W.P.(C) No. 17058/2006


     NAVAL KISHORE KAMBOJ            .....Petitioner.
                      Through Mr.R.K.Saini, advocate.

                 Versus


     D.D.A.                            .....Respondent
                             Through Mr.Amiet Andley, advocate.

CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                        ORDER

% 20.04.2009

1. The petitioner on deposit of Rs.4,500/- and was registered with DDA under the N.P.R. Scheme, 1979 for allotment of M.I.G. flat.

2. DDA claims that the registration of the petitioner was cancelled as the petitioner did not accepted the M.I.G. flat allotted to him in 1987 in Nand Nagri and in turn had asked DDA to consider his name for allotment of another flat but did not pay cancellation charges.

3. The petitioner's name was included in the draw for tail-end priority cases held on 31st March, 2004 and flat no. 534, Pocket-A, Sector 17, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner. DDA, however, did not issue demand-cum-allotment letter on the ground that the petitioner's registration was cancelled due to non-deposit of cancellation charges.

4. There were several other cases where cancellation charges were not deposited but the name of the said party was included in the tail end draw of lots. DDA had refused to make allotments as per the tail end draw of lots on the ground that cancellation charges had not been paid.

5. The allottees thereupon filed writ petitions in this Court, which were contested on the ground of non payment of cancellation charges. Rejecting this argument a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Civil No. 5793/2005 titled Raj Kumar Malhotra versus DDA and other cases directed DDA to issue demand cum allotment letters. The Court took into consideration the long delay in allotment of flats since 1979, statutory obligations and monopoly rights given to DDA and the humane approach required as allottees had been waiting for more than 25 years for having a roof over their heads. The said decision has been followed in several other cases. DDA preferred an appeal in the case of Abhay Prakash Sinha versus Delhi Development Authority but the said LPA No.179/2008 filed by the DDA stands dismissed. However, while disposing of the Appeal, the Division Bench has directed as under:-

"The appellant had next contended that the respondents have not given undertaking in terms of the order dated 19th September, 2005 of the learned Single Judge. We have perused the order dated 19th September, 2005 and note that the respondents had agreed to file an affidavit by way of undertaking not to transfer or sell the allotted flats for a period of five years from the date of taking the possession. The requirement of undertaking does now flow from the Scheme. However, since the Respondents have been given equitable relief and they had themselves agreed to give the undertaking recorded in the order dated 19th September, 2005, in our view, the respondents cannot wriggle out of the undertaking in terms of the order dated 19th September, 2005 and they would be entitled to the flat subject to the furnishing of the undertaking in terms of the said order.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Learned Single Judge. We, therefore, dismiss these appeals but without costs. DDA is directed to hand over the possession of the allotted flats to the respondents within six weeks subject to the respondents furnishing undertaking to DDA that respondents would not transfer or sell the allotted flats for a period of five years from the date of taking possession in terms of the undertaking given by them before the Learned Single Judge. "

The petitioner herein will also given an undertaking to this

Court and to the respondents in terms of the said Order. DDA will

verify the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner for allotment and

whether any third party interest has been created.

6. In view of the aforesaid facts and in terms of the Order passed by the Division Bench, it is accordingly directed that the petitioner will be issued demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the flat no.534, Pocket A, Sector 17, Dwarka, New Delhi as per rates charged from others who were allotted flats in the same location in the draw of lots held on 31st March, 2004. While raising the demand, DDA will be entitled to charge cancellation charges and interest on cancellation charges @ 15% p.a. DDA, however, will not be entitled to charge interest on the price of the flat as they themselves did not issue the requisite demand-cum-allotment letter. Needful will be done within six weeks from today. In case the aforesaid flat is not available and has been allotted to a third party, DDA will include the name of the petitioner in the next mini draw of lots which should be held within a period of two months from today. Demand-cum-allotment letter, however, will be issued on the basis of price charged from others for the flats allotted in the same location as per the draw of lots held on 31st March, 2004 plus cancellation charges and interest on cancellation charges @ 15% p.a.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

APRIL 20, 2009.

P