Delhi High Court
Bal Krishan Vohra vs Delhi Development Authority on 11 January, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
31
+ W.P.(C) 3042/2010 & CM APPL 6091/2010
BAL KRISHAN VOHRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S.K. Rungta, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVEOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes
ORDER
11.01.2011
1. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned demand letter dated 18 th
March 2010 issued to the Petitioner in respect of the allotment in his favour
by the Delhi Development Authority („DDA‟) of Shop No. 62, Block-D,
Local Shopping Centre, Prashant Vihar, Delhi under the quota for the
disabled. The case of the Petitioner is that the cost of the shop in question
should have been calculated at the rates prevalent in the year 1998, i.e. at the
time when he became entitled to the allotment.
2. The admitted facts are that the Petitioner is a person with disability. He
applied for an out of turn allotment („OTA‟) against disability quota in terms
of the policy of the DDA and he was allotted a shop in question pursuant to
decision taken by the Empowered Committee at its meeting held on 8th
January 1998. By a communication dated 19th March 1998, the DDA
informed the Petitioner that he has been allotted a shop through a draw held
on 27th February 1998. The demand letter indicated the total amount payable
as Rs. 6,99,765/-. The Petitioner made a representation on 31st July 1998
pointing out that at the same time the DDA had advertised about 1000 shops
in a tender in the same locality i.e. Prashant Vihar, the reserve price for which
was fixed at Rs. 4 lakhs and those shops were measuring about 20 sq. m
whereas the size of the Petitioner‟s shop was only 9.70 sq.m. The Petitioner,
accordingly, sought review of the amount demanded in the allotment letter.
Thereafter, the Petitioner continuously represented to the DDA for issuing a
revised demand letter.
3. The Petitioner further states that he filed an application under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act‟) on 19th July 2006 in response to which the
DDA informed that the demand letter could not be issued as the Petitioner had
objected to the earlier demand letter and further informed that a fresh demand
letter would be issued as and when the matter was decided. The position was
no different when the Petitioner filed another application on 5th February 2009
under the RTI Act. Thereafter, on 18th March 2010 the Petitioner received the
impugned demand letter indicating the total premium for the shop in question
as Rs. 12,07,720/-. The Petitioner again represented against the said demand
letter on 20th March 2010. Thereafter, the present petition was filed.
4. In its counter affidavit, the DDA has stated that it had charged the average
auction rate of 1998-99 received for tenders finalized in August 1998, after its
updation together with appropriate rate of interest. It is maintained that no
excess amount has been charged.
5. Along with the rejoinder, the Petitioner has filed copies of the notings on
the file. The noting dated 28th September 1998 of the Finance Member of the
DDA pointed out that the market rate applied for the Petitioner‟s shop was
Rs.68,537/- per sq.m. whereas for the shops intended to be disposed of by
tenders, the market rate adopted was around Rs. 25,000/- per sq.m.
6. At one stage, the DDA had decided to charge the Petitioner the average
tender rate which was charged for shops in Prashant Vihar . This worked out
to Rs. 26,430/- per sq.m. The noting of 5th March 2009 of the Assistant
Director indicates that in terms of a Circular dated 15th September 2000 where
units had been allotted and a demand letter was either not issued or where
issued but payment was not made, it had been proposed to charge the average
tender rate of April 2000. However, it appears that the DDA subsequently
decided to discard the said circular on the ground that the OTA policy had
been discontinued.
7. This Court has perused the Circular dated 15th September 2000. It concerns
not only the allotment of old undisposed commercial built up shops to the
widows of DDA staff members who died in harness, but all cases where units
were allotted on OTA basis. The said circular reads as under:
"The issue of fixing reserve price of old undisposed
commercial built up units which have been allotted under
O.T.A. category has been engaging our attention. It has
already been decided that we will charge average tender rate of
April 2000 of the commercial complex where a particular unit
is located and has been allotted on OTA basis to a widow of
DDA employee dying in harness. However, there are some old
cases where units were allotted on OTA basis but either the
demand letters were not issued or the demand letters were
issued but payments were not made. In such cases, a
compassionate view was taken and a proposal to charge
average tender rate (received by way of recent tenders in April
2000) for allotment of these old units to Staff widows was
placed before the V.C., DDA for consideration who has kindly
agreed as a matter of policy in this regard and it has been
decided that on all pending cases in respect of old commercial
built up units allotted to a person on OTA basis or under staff
widow category where either the demand letters have not been
issued or demand letters have been issued but the payments
have not been made, the average tender rate for that
commercial complex (as of April 2000) will be charged. All
pending cases may be disposed of accordingly."
8. Merely because the OTA policy was subsequently discontinued does not
mean that the benefit of above circular dated 15th September 2000 would not
be made available to the OTAs already made, which were not cancelled. The
noting on file dated 18th May 2009 clearly shows that on the basis of the cost
of the shop worked out by applying an average tender rate for April 2000 (i.e.
Rs. 22,586.14 per sq.m.), the total cost worked out to Rs. 2,19,086/-. This is
the amount that ought to have been charged from the Petitioner. There was no
justification in the DDA persisting with charging the „auction‟ rate. The
benefit of the Circular dated 15th September 2000 ought to have been
extended to the Petitioner and he should not have been charged in excess of
the average tender rate as prevailing in April 2000. Consequently, this Court
holds that the impugned demand letter dated 18 th March 2010 issued by the
DDA is unsustainable in law. It is hereby quashed.
9. Pursuant to the interim order dated 5th May 2010, the Petitioner deposited a
sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with the DDA without prejudice to his rights and
contentions and there was a stay of cancellation of the plot in question in his
favour. It is now directed that the DDA will issue a fresh demand letter in the
sum of Rs. 2,19,086/- for the shop in question within a period of four weeks
from today and within the same period, refund to the Petitioner the difference
between the said amount and the sum of Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by the
Petitioner. Subject to the Petitioner completing all the formalities, the
Petitioner will be put in possession of the shop in question within a further
period of four weeks. For any delay in the DDA making the refund beyond
the said period of four weeks, the DDA will, on the differential amount, pay
simple interest @ 6% per annum for the period of delay.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application
also stands disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
JANUARY 11, 2011
rk
