Prem Chand vs D.D.A.
2009 Latest Caselaw 602 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             W.P.(C) 3718/2008 & CM No.12259/2008

                                             Date of decision : 19.02.2009
IN THE MATTER OF :

#PREM CHAND                                   ...   Petitioner
!                                Through :Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate


                    versus


$ D.D.A.                                         ..... Respondent
^                                Through : Ms. Charul Sarin, Advocate



CORAM

* HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

     1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the
        Judgment?       No.

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?    No.

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


HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for

issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent/DDA to allot an

alternative LIG flat in Sector 14, Dwarka at the cost prevalent in the year

2002.

2. Notice was issued on the present writ petition on 14.05.2008,

whereafter pleadings were completed. In the meantime, the

respondent/DDA issued a demand letter dated 21.07.2008 to the petitioner

allotting him a flat bearing No. 314, Pocket 4, Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi at

the disposal cost of Rs.6,78,874/-. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner

filed CM No. 12259/2008 praying inter alia for directions to the DDA to issue

a revised demand letter in respect of the flat allotted to the petitioner, at the

cost prevailing in the year 2002, without charging any interest thereon.

3. Counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent wrongly

forwarded the allotment-cum-demand letter in the year 2002 to the

petitioner at the old address, though the petitioner had duly intimated the

respondent about the change of his residence in the year 1986. Though the

said letter was never received by the petitioner, the respondent/DDA

cancelled the allotment. The petitioner thereafter approached the respondent

in the year 2005 and made representations to the DDA to get information

regarding his allotment. In these circumstances, counsel for the petitioner

states that the case of the petitioner is covered by the office order dated

25.02.2005 issued by the DDA, wherein it was clarified that in cases,

wherein any change of address was intimated by the registrants but

erroneously not recorded by the DDA and thereafter, demand letters were

sent at the wrong or old addresses and the allottee approached the DDA

within a period of four years from the date of registration, he/she shall be

allotted a flat at the old cost prevalent at the time when the priority of the

allottee matured and the allotment letter issued and no interest will be

charged.

4. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the factual position

that the petitioner had duly intimated the respondent about change of his

address. It is also an undisputed position that the petitioner approached the

DDA by way of a representation in the year 2005, i.e., within a period of

three years from the date when the DDA issued the demand-cum-allotment

letter to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the levy of interest at the

rate of 7% per annum on the old cost of the flat as in the month of July,

2002, w.e.f. September, 2005 to September, 2008 is unjustified.

5. Accordingly, it is held that the office order dated 25.2.2005 is

applicable to the facts of the present case and the petitioner is not liable to

pay Rs.95,377/- demanded by the respondent from the petitioner on

account of interest at the rate of 7% w.e.f. September, 2005 to September

2008. However, the current cost of the excess area of 6.15 sq. meters

allotted to the petitioner, as in the year 2008, is liable to be paid by the

petitioner alongwith the disposal cost of the earlier allotted flat as on July,

2002.

6. The respondent shall issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to

the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid order within four weeks from today.

The petitioner shall make necessary compliances thereafter in terms of the

demand cum allotment letter. The respondent shall hand over possession of

the flat to the petitioner within four weeks from the date when the petitioner

completes all the necessary formalities. With the aforesaid orders, the

present writ petition and the application are disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI,J FEBRUARY 19, 2009 rkb