Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Ram Kumar Aggarwal on 3 June, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ L.P.A. No. 527 /2011
Delhi Development Authority ....Petitioners
Through Ms. Shobna Takiar, Advocate.
VERSUS
Ram Kumar Aggarwal .....Respondent
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 03.06.2011
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CM No. 11419/2011 (for condonation of delay)
This intra court appeal filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA,
for short) is delayed by 227 days. In this application for condonation of delay
it is stated that the delay has been caused due to bureaucratic working and is
neither intentional nor deliberate.
2. Before issuing notice on the application for condonation of delay, we
have thought it appropriate to examine the merits of the case.
3. The respondent had applied for and was registered for allotment of
Lower Income Group flat (LIG Flat) under the New Housing Pattern Scheme,
1979. He was assigned registration No. 1927 and priority No. 31908. After
delay of 30 years, the respondent was issued demand-cum-allotment letter
having block dates 05.03.2009 - 12.03.2009 stating, inter-alia, that he had
been allotted an LIG flat in Rohini in the draws held on 22.9.2007 at the price
of Rs.7,43,475.10. The price included interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
allotment till the date of maturity.
4. The respondent protested and questioned the price. He pleaded that
his allotment had matured in 1996 and, therefore, should be charged the old
price as the delay in allotment was caused to due to the defaults and lapses
on the part of the DDA. The stand taken by the DDA in the counter affidavit
on the said aspect reads as under:-
"h) That it is pertinent to mention here that the
priority of the petitioner was covered on 11.9.1996.
As such, to avail benefit of old cost only, petitioner
had to contact the Respondent and complete all the
formalities within a period of 4 years when his priority
number came matured/to be covered. But in this
case, the petitioner did not approach the
Respondents within 4 years as he approached them
only on 14.11.2005 and thus he was charged old cost
plus 12% interest in terms of the policy of the
Respondent. Additionally, differential cost of
construction due to the fact the flat fell under turnkey
project. It is stated that delay in approaching DDA in
this case cannot be attributed to the respondent and
since DDA is not at fault for the delay, 12% interest is
charged not as a penalty but because the petitioner
has enjoyed the benefit of old cost and DDA was
deprived of the deposited cost.
That respondent seeks to place reliance on policy
dated 6.6.2006 wherein it has been laid down that
where the Registrant has not approached DDA within
a period of 4 years when the priority of the applicant
matured, the registrant shall be considered for
allotment at old cost plus 12% interest limited to
current cost."
5. The appellant DDA had, therefore, admitted that in case the
respondent had contact the appellant and completed formalities within a
period of four years when his priority number had matured, he was entitled
to allotment of the flat at the old price.
6. Learned single Judge accepted the contention of the respondent that
he had written to the appellant a registered letter dated 19.6.1998 within
four years. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said
letter is fabricated. On what basis, the learned counsel for the appellant has
made the statement, is not elucidated or explained. Reference was made to
the said letter dated 19.6.1998 in the writ petition in paragraphs 10 and 11.
In reply/counter affidavit, it is stated that the notice dated 19.6.1998 was not
served on the DDA by the respondent. The respondent along with the writ
petition had filed photocopy of the registered AD postal receipt as well as
photocopy of the acknowledgment card received after service. The
acknowledgment card bears the stamp of the DDA that the said letter was
received in the office of the DDA. Learned counsel for the appellant could
not point out whether they have examined their dak/receipt register for the
relevant period. She has submitted that the letter is not on record. This not
enough or satisfactory reply. If the letter was received but was not kept on
record, then the fault and lapse lies with the DDA. Once the respondent has
placed on record copy of the postal receipt as well as acknowledgment card
with the stamp of DDA, the presumption under Section 27 of the General
Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act arises. The said letter has
been rightly relied upon by the learned single Judge to allow the writ
petition.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not see any reason to issue
notice on the application for condonation of delay. Accordingly the
application and consequently the appeal, are dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
June 3, 2011
kkb
