Delhi High Court
Ram Gopal Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20th September, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 3645/2010 & CM No.7286/2010 (for stay)
RAM GOPAL SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. K. Kinra, Adv.
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Somesh Chandra, Adv. for Mrs.
Madhu Sharan, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the price of `10,88,643.99p demanded by the
respondent DDA from the petitioner in the demand-cum-allotment letter
dated 25.02.2009-03.03.2009 for an LIG flat No.727, First Floor, Block-B,
Pocket-B1 of Loknayak Puram, Delhi.
2. Notice of the petition was issued and vide order dated 22.07.2010
which continues to be in force, the respondent DDA was directed to
maintain status quo in respect of the flat in question. Pleadings have been
completed.
3. The petitioner was a registrant in the New Pattern Registration
Scheme (NPRS) of the year 1979 of the respondent DDA. He was in the
year 1992 allotted a flat but did not opt for the same and opted for allotment
at the tail end and deposited the cancellation charges therefor. It is his case
that though the draw for tail end registrants was held on 27.09.2007 but the
demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him only on 25.02.2009-
03.03.2009 and owing whereto the cost of `10,88,643.99p has been
demanded from him. It is his case that others who were successful in the
draw held on 27.09.2007 have been issued demand-cum-allotment letter for
identical flats of `9,19,378/-. He thus claims that the respondent DDA is
discriminating and charging from him about `1,70,000/- in excess than what
has been demanded from others identically situated as him. The petitioner in
this regard invites attention to a demand-cum-allotment letter dated
23.01.2009-29.01.2009 issued to one Sh. Joginder Sehgal.
4. However, the demand-cum-allotment letter of the petitioner shows the
date of draw in pursuance to which demand has been made from the
petitioner, as 17.11.2008; on the contrary, the letter in favour of Sh. Joginder
Sehgal shows the date of draw as 27.09.2007. The pre-determined rates are
charged by the respondent DDA as per the cost of land and cost of
development as in the year of holding of the draw pursuant to which the
demand-cum-allotment letter is issued. It is thus found that the year of draw
in which Sh. Joginder Sehgal succeeded, is different from the year of draw
in which the petitioner has succeeded. Though the petitioner claims that he
was also successful in the draw held on 27.09.2007 but there is nothing to
show so. There is nothing to doubt the date of draw as indicated in the
demand-cum-allotment letters issued to the petitioner and Sh. Joginder
Sehgal and the difference in price is found to be owing to the difference in
the year. It may also be mentioned that the flat allotted to Sh. Joginder
Sehgal is on the third floor and in a different pocket and block as against the
flat allotted to the petitioner on the ground floor.
5. The counsel for the petitioner with reference to the schedule of
payment prescribed in the two demand-cum-allotment letters contends that
the dates thereof overlap and there is no justification for demanding different
prices from allottees who are to make payment at the same time.
6. There undoubtedly appears to be a delay in the issuance of the
demand-cum-allotment letter to Sh. Joginder Sehgal aforesaid on
23.01.2009-29.01.2009 when the draw was held on 27.09.2007. However,
the reason for the said delay is not subject matter of the controversy herein.
The Policy of price fixation according to the year of the holding of the draw
of lots is not under challenge in the present petition. Merely because there
has been a delay on the part of the respondent DDA in raising the demand on
Sh. Joginder Sehgal is no reason for the petitioner to contend that the
petitioner is not liable to pay the pre-determined rate of the year of his
allotment. No merit is therefore found in this contention also of the
petitioner.
7. It has been enquired from the counsel for the petitioner whether the
petitioner has paid at least the admitted amount to the respondent DDA
within the stipulated date. The last date for payment by the petitioner was
30.08.2009 and whereafter there was to be an automatic cancellation of the
allotment.
8. The counsel for the petitioner states that since there is an interim order
in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner was justified in not making
payment of the admitted amount also and the automatic cancellation
provided for in the demand-cum-allotment letter would not come into force.
9. I do not agree with the reasoning / justification given by the counsel
for the petitioner. The interim order of this Court was only to restrain the
respondent DDA from allotting flat to any other person. The petitioner did
not seek any stay of cancellation of his allotment notwithstanding non
payment by him of even the admitted amount. The petitioner has clearly
filed the present petition merely to delay the payment of the price. This is
further evident from the fact that the counsel for the petitioner today also
seeks three months time to make the payment averring that the petitioner has
to arrange for the loan.
10. The counsel for the petitioner relies on the order dated 27.01.2010 in
W.P.(C) No.11380/2009 titled Jit Ram Vs. DDA but is unable to show as to
how the same lays down any law holding the petitioner to be entitled to any
remission in price.
11. However, since the possibility of ambiguity in view of the omnibus
interim order of this Court cannot be ruled out and to prevent any further
litigation, it is deemed expedient to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to
make the payment. As per the demand-cum-allotment letter, a sum of
`11,28,909/- was payable by the petitioner by 30.08.2009. Accordingly,
subject to the amount of `11,28,909/- being paid together with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum with effect from 01.09.2009 and till the date of
payment, not later than 20.12.2011, the petitioner shall be entitled to the flat
aforesaid. It has been made clear that no further extension of time shall be
given and any default in payment and/or payment of a deficit amount shall
entitle the respondent DDA to immediately allot the flat to some other
person. It is further clarified that the cancellation which has automatically
come into force shall stand restored only upon payment within the said time
else shall remain.
12. The aforesaid is further subject to the petitioner depositing cost of this
petition of `10,000/- with the respondent DDA within 10 days of today.
Dasti.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
gsr
