Kuldeep Singh vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 1701 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
12.

+       W.P.(C) 7924/2008


        KULDEEP SINGH                     ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate.

                   versus


        D.D.A.                 ..... Respondent
                         Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                  ORDER

% 27.04.2009

1. The petitioner Mr. Kuldeep Singh had deposited Rs. 12,000/-

with the respondent DDA and was registered for allotment of MIG flat

under Ambedkar Awas Yojana, 1989. The petitioner was allotted

registration no. 647A on 23.12.1989.

2. After waiting for more than 13 years the petitioner was allotted

MIG flat No. 52, Third Floor, Pocket-I, Sector-6, Dwarka in the

computerized draw held on 30.07.2003. DDA issued demand-cum

allotment letter with block dates 25.09.2003 to 30.09.2003 for

payment of the cost of flat as per schedule mentioned therein. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 13,03,446/-. As per the case of DDA the

last date for making payment, with interest was 28.03.2004.

3. The petitioner claims that his wife was not well during the said

period as she was suffering from cardiac problems. The petitioner

has enclosed medical certificates and prescriptions including the

prescriptions from AIIMS and other hospitals in support of his

contention. The petitioner claims that in view of the illness of his

wife, initially he had written letter dated 31.03.2004 for cancellation

of registration and refund of registration money of Rs. 12,000/- with

interest.

4. DDA by their letter dated 26.04.2004 wrote to the petitioner,

stating that he should submit 4th copy of bank challan of Rs. 12,000/-

for deposit of registration money and also appear in the office of

Assistant Director, MIG to sign the Indeminity Bond on any working

Monday or Thursday between 2.30 pm to 5.00 p.m. The date on

which the said letter dated 26.04.2004 was dispatched and was

received by the petitioner is however, not stated by DDA.

5. The petitioner, on 27.04.2004 wrote another letter stating

therein that had made arrangement for funds and therefore his

request for cancellation of registration and refund of registration

deposit may be treated as withdrawn and the flat allotted to him may be restored. The petitioner further stated that he was ready to pay

the restoration charges. The petitioner, thereafter wrote another

letter dated 11.11.2004 enclosing challans for deposit of

Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,63,200/- along with undertaking and affidavit.

Subsequently, the petitioner deposited further amounts as per details

given below:

S.No.               Challan No.        Date               Amount

                                                          deposited.

3.                  603684             20.06.05           Rs. 2,94,000/-

4.                  603687             23.06.05           Rs. 80,000/-

5.                  21242              04.07.05           Rs. 89,000/-

6.                  21278              06.07.05           Rs. 2,48,000/-

7.                  110130             11.07.05           Rs. 39,000/-

8.                  102511             22.09.05           Rs. 60,000/-

6. Thus the petitioner made payment of the entire principal

amount of Rs. 13,73,200/- as demanded by DDA. The aforesaid

payments were received by DDA. Petitioner repeatedly wrote letters

to the DDA enclosing therewith challans for payments deposited by

him and requested for extension of time to make payments. These letters are dated 28.02.2005, 27.06.2005, 12.07.2005 and

22.09.2005. In these letters, the petitioner gave full details of the

payments made to DDA. DDA vide letter dated 17.05.2005 wrote to

the petitioner as under:

" With reference to your/this office letter dated 28.02.2005 on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that :- To deposit the balance amount so that case could be process further."

7. By another letter dated 09.09.2005, DDA informed the

petitioner as under:

" Sir/Madam, With reference to your/this office letter dated... on the subject cited above, I directed to inform you that please attend the office on any working Monday or Thursday between 2.30 PM & 5.30 PM alongwith original Election Identity Card, Passport or Ration Card for verification of genuiness.

You are also requested to deposit the balance amount along with interest under intimation to the undersigned. "

8. Reading of the first letter dated 17.05.2005 shows that the

DDA had accepted the request of the petitioner made by the letter

dated 27.04.2004 and had called upon the petitioner to deposit

payments as demanded. Similarly the subsequent letter dated

09.09.2005 shows that the DDA had called upon the petitioner to report to the office of Assistant Director MIG along with papers for

verification. Petitioner was asked to deposit balance amount with

interest under intimation. The respondent-DDA has concealed and

has not referred to these letters in their counter affidavit. DDA should

not have concealed these facts and letters available in their records.

As a public authority, the reply affidavit filed should be truthful and

complete.

9. It is submitted by DDA that after receiving the entire principal

amount, by order/letter dated 20.04.2006, DDA informed the

petitioner that the original registration has been cancelled in view of

request made on 31.03.2004. However, the fact that request of the

petitioner dated 31.03.2004 stood withdrawn vide letter dated

27.04.2004 remains unstated and unanswered. Further, payments

made by the petitioner towards cost of the flat, acceptance thereof

and letters dated 17.5.2005 and 9.9.2005 calling upon the petitioner

to pay interest for belated payments remain unanswered.

10. I do not think that DDA can be permitted to go behind and

change its stand in this manner, after having asked the petitioner to

deposit the balance payments for allotment of flat vide letters dated

17.04.2005 and 09.09.2005. By the said letters, the respondent

accepted the payments made by the petitioner. Having accepted the payments and after calling upon the petitioner to make payments,

the contention of the DDA that the original registration was

cancelled cannot be accepted. Principle of estoppel is applicable. The

petitioner continued making deposits and DDA retained these

deposits and even asked the petitioner to make further deposits and

interest, on the basis that the petitioner's registration and allotment

is alive and active. It is unfair, unjust and arbitrary for the DDA in

2006 to contend that payments made are void and of no

consequence and the registration was cancelled on 26.04.2004. The

petitioner of course will be liable to pay interest for the delayed

deposits @ 18% p.a. for the period of default as per the policy of

DDA.

11. Another plea raised by the DDA in the counter affidavit is that

the default and delay in the present case is more than one year i.e.

the entire amount was not paid within one year. I do not find any

merit in the said contention as DDA itself is to be blamed for not

immediately replying and answering the petitioner when letter dated

27.4.2004 was written withdrawing request for cancellation of

registration. Secondly, by the time letters dated 17.5.2005 and

9.9.2005 were written, one year period from date mentioned in the

demand cum allotment letter i.e. 28.3.2004 had expired but the petitioner was called upon to deposit payment. Lastly, the policy

decision, if any, was not brought to the notice and knowledge of the

petitioner so as to warn him.

12. Petitioner will visit to the office of Assistant Director, MIG on

18.05.2009 at 3.00 p.m. along with relevant papers. DDA will

calculate interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment and inform

the petitioner in writing on 18.05.2009. Payment will be made within

four weeks from the date of communication of the said demand. In

case the flat in question has been allotted to a third person, another

flat will be allotted to the petitioner in the same locality in the next

mini draw to be held within two months. Cost will be the cost

prevalent when the demand cum allotment letter with block dates

25.09.2003 to 30.09.2003 was sent.

Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

APRIL 27, 2009 Ap/P