Delhi High Court
Diwan Chand vs Delhi Development Authority on 10 February, 2011
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) No.5916/2007
Date of Decision: February 10, 2011
DIWAN CHAND ..... Petitioner
through Mr. R.K.Saini, Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Saini, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
through Ms. Alpana Poddar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the 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
REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
It is not in dispute that the allotment of Category III Flat at
Ground Floor, bearing No.205, Pocket-L, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi was
made in favour of the petitioner which was later cancelled on
August 30, 1991. Aggrieved by the cancellation, the petitioner filed a
civil suit on November 30, 1992 which was disposed of on
April 03, 2003 holding the cancellation to be illegal. Consequently the
following reliefs as prayed for were granted:-
"(a) declaration to the effect that the plaintiff
is entitled for the allotment and possession of
the flat in Sarita Vihar, New Delhi under S.F.S.
IIIrd Scheme against File No.F.128(282)/88/
SFS/SV/III;
WP(C) No.5916/2007 Page 1
(b) mandatory injunction in favour of the
Plaintiff and against the Defendant thereby
directing the defendant/DDA to hand over
vacant physical possession of a flat in Sarita
Vihar, New Delhi, to plaintiff against file
No.F.128(282)/88/SFS/SV/III on receipt of the
entire cost of the said flat."
It is also not in dispute that the respondent/DDA preferred an
appeal against the judgment and decree of the Civil Court before an
Additional District Judge which was dismissed on January 14, 2004 and
against that order, a Regular Second Appeal was preferred in this Court
which, too, was dismissed on January 11, 2005. However, even after
the dismissal of the appeal by this Court, it was only on May 17, 2007
that the respondent/DDA issued a demand-cum-allotment letter
demanding a sum of ` 43,62,145/- from the petitioner.
The petitioner says that the original cost of the flat was only
` 2,92,000/- and that he is entitled to the allotment of the flat at the
cost which was prevalent as on August 30, 1991 when the allotment of
the petitioner was cancelled.
The learned counsel for the respondent/DDA, on the other hand,
says that the sum of ` 43,62,145/- has been demanded from the
petitioner at the rate that was prevailing as on the date of issue of the
demand-cum-allotment letter.
Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am of the
view that the demand-cum-allotment letter dated May 17, 2007
demanding the sum of Rs.43,62,145/- from the petitioner has no basis
at all. The Civil Court having held that the cancellation made by the
DDA on August 30, 1991 was illegal and this Court having affirmed that
WP(C) No.5916/2007 Page 2
order in appeal, I fail to understand how the DDA could charge the rate
of the year 2007 from the petitioner.
In view of the above, the respondent/DDA is directed to issue a
fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner at the cost which
was prevailing as on August 30, 1991. The petitioner has already
deposited a sum of ` 10 lacs in this Court in terms of order dated
November 24, 2008 which amount shall be adjusted in the fresh
demand-cum-allotment letter. The demand-cum-allotment letter shall
be issued within four weeks and if there is any excess amount, the
petitioner shall deposit the same within four weeks after the
demand-cum-allotment letter is issued and upon the petitioner
depositing the same, the possession of the flat in question shall be
handed over to him within four weeks thereafter.
With these directions, the writ-petition is disposed of.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
ka
WP(C) No.5916/2007 Page 3
