Delhi High Court
Vijay Kumar Malhotra vs Delhi Development Authority on 15 September, 2009
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C.) No.4344/2008 & C.M. No.8420/2008
% Date of Decision: 15.09.2009
Vijay Kumar Malhotra .... Petitioner
Through Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Development Authority .... Respondent
Through Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Mr. Pawan Mathur,
Advocates for the respondent/DDA with
Mr. S.S. Gill, Director
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The respondent/DDA had sought time to file an affidavit to
disclose as to on what grounds the rates for 2003-2004 have been
demanded from the petitioner though he was entitled for allotment in
1989 which fact had been admitted by the respondent, as the name of
the petitioner was omitted on account of inadvertence on the part of the
respondent. Despite four weeks time granted on 6th July, 2009, the
affidavit was not filed. On 6th August, 2009, four weeks' time was again
W P (c) no.4344 of 2008
granted to file the additional affidavit which has not been filed and in
the circumstances the right of the respondent to file the additional
affidavit justifying demanding the rates for 2003-2004 from the
petitioner is closed.
2. The petitioner has sought for allotment of a 90 sq.mtr. plot under
the quota reserved for Ex Serviceman despite registration for 23 years
as he was entitled for allotment in 1989 but his name was not included.
3. During the pendency of the petition, by an interim order dated
19th January, 2009, DDA was directed to include the name of the
petitioner for allotment in a developed sector in the draw to be held on
4th February, 2009, as the petitioner is an applicant since 1981 and his
priority had matured in 1989.
4. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw of lots held
on 4th February, 2009 and demand-cum-allotment letter
No.F.54(10)09/LSB/Rohini/49418 dated 24/26th March, 2009 for plot
No.65, Pocket 3, Block B, Sector 17 measruing 60 square meters, Phase
II, in Rohini Residential Scheme was issued demanding an amount of
W P (c) no.4344 of 2008
Rs.6,53,520/-. In the demand-cum-allotment letter, petitioner has
been demanded the rate of Rs.10,890/- per sq.mtr. which rates were
his prevalent in 2003-2004.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit to the writ petition had
not denied that the petitioner was an applicant for allotment of a MIG
plot in Rohini Residential Scheme vide Application No.111934 and his
priority was 2583. It is also admitted that on account of omission of the
priority number, the name of the petitioner was omitted from the
computer record on the use of ID-8784. The respondent also admitted
that DDA is considering the case of the petitioner for allotment.
6. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for the plot which was
drawn in his favour in the mini draw held on 4th February, 2009 and in
respect of which a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 24th/26th March,
2009 has been issued demanding an amount of Rs.6,53,520/- on the
basis of rates of 2003-2004.
7. Though the right of the respondent to file the affidavit justifying
the rates of 2003-2004 by DDA from the petitioner has been closed,
W P (c) no.4344 of 2008
however, the learned counsel for the petitioner on instruction states
that the petitioner is agreeable to pay the rates for the plot for the year
2003-2004 as demanded by demand-cum-allotment letter dated
24th/26th March, 2009, though in the writ petition he has claimed rates
on basis of 1989 as his priority had matured in 1989 and was omitted
on account of lapse on the part of the respondent.
8. Since no other amount has been demanded by the respondent
from the petitioner and the additional affidavit has not been filed by the
respondent justifying any other demand, therefore, the respondent is
not entitled for any other amount from the petitioner for allotment of
said plot except Rs.6,53,520/- as demanded in the allotment letter
dated 24th/26th March, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner states
that an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has already been paid by the
petitioner to the respondent. In the circumstances, the respondent
shall be entitled to receive the balance amount from the petitioner for
allotment of said plot to the petitioner.
9. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The
petitioner is entitled for allotment of plot which has been intimated to
the petitioner by demand cum allotment letter dated 24th/26th March,
W P (c) no.4344 of 2008
2009. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the consideration for the plot
at the rates of 2003-2004 as demanded in demand cum allotment letter
as admitted by the counsel on instructions from the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner states that an amount of Rs.2,25,000/- has
already been paid on 19.5.2009. The respondent shall be entitled to
verify the amount already paid by the petitioner and the balance
amount shall be paid by the petitioner within four weeks. After payment
of balance amount and on getting the formalities completed from the
petitioner for handing over the possession of the plot, the possession of
the plot shall be handed over to the petitioner within eight weeks after
payment of balance amount. The respondent shall also execute the
lease deed of the plot in favor of petitioner in accordance with rules and
regulations. The writ petition is disposed of in terms hereof.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left
to bear their own cost.
September 15, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'Dev/AA'
W P (c) no.4344 of 2008
