Pitamber Dutt vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 4763 Del

4
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 3184/2012 & CM.No.6823/2012

%                                      Order delivered on: 14.08.2012
       PITAMBER DUTT                             ..... Petitioner
               Through:          Mr.V.S. Reddy, Advocate

                    versus

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR ..... Respondent
                Through: Ms.Manika Tripathi and Mr.Ashutosh
                         Kaushik, Advocates for the DDA.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. This is the third round of litigation between the parties. The petitioner had applied in the year 1979 under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 and was allotted a LIG flat bearing No.29-G, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, New Delhi on hire purchase basis. In the year 1990 a demand letter with block dates of 24-04-1990 to 03.05.1990 was issued to the petitioner. The cost of the flat was fixed at Rs.1,21,100/-. The petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs.27,700/- towards the initial cost of the flat and the balance amount was to be deposited in 180 equal instalments inclusive of interest @ Rs.1250/- per month (Rs.519/- towards the principle amount and Rs.731/- towards the interest).

2. Admittedly, the petitioner instead of depositing Rs.27,700/-

deposited a sum of approximately Rs.58,833/- on 26.06.1990. The petitioner decided to fix his own monthly instalment of Rs.833.50 and varied the terms of the allotment letter unilaterally and also made a request to the DDA to fix the monthly instalments as per his choice, however, no response was received from the DDA. Thereafter the petitioner kept on depositing a sum of Rs.833.50 per month for 24 instalments up to the year 1992 and thereafter the petitioner again did not make the monthly payment of instalment and in the year 2007 deposited another sum of Rs.77,931/-. Since the petitioner did not deposit the monthly instalments after the 24 th instalment, DDA levied interest on the amounts due, totaling to Rs.1,37,897/-.

3. In the meanwhile, for non-deposit of the monthly instalment, DDA issued a default notice in April, 2001 for outstanding amounts, and penalty and also issued notice dated 21.09.2006. Petitioner was also informed that a sum of Rs.1,19,012/- was due and payable, however, no reply was received from the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the demand of the DDA, the petitioner filed a writ petition [WP(C)No.11299/2009] challenging the calculation of the DDA. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 10.03.2011. Operative portion of the order dated 10.03.2012 reads as under:

"3. It is not possible for this Court to determine the correctness of either of the calculations under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, it is directed that the Chief Financial Officer of the DDA will examine the respective claims and also give the Petitioner an

opportunity of being heard on 18th April 2011 at 3.00 pm. He will communicate to the Petitioner the decision of the DDA within a further period of four weeks thereafter. If the amount, if any, as determined to be payable by the DDA is paid by the Petitioner within the time granted by the DDA for that purpose, an NOC will thereafter be issued by the DDA to the Petitioner.

4. The writ petition is disposed of."

5. Being dissatisfied with the proceedings before the DDA, petitioner again approached this court by filing a writ petition [WP(C)No.5180/2011] which was also disposed of by an order dated 16.01.2012, upholding the earlier order. The court also noticed that the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of the DDA by which his request for refund was rejected as no calculation was submitted.

6. The Court again directed the Chief Financial Officer, DDA to look into the grievance of the petitioner. By a speaking order dated 15.03.2012 the Chief Financial Officer, DDA considered the case of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that although no interest is payable, as a special case, petitioner would be entitled to Rs.5,900/- as refund, after all adjustments.

7. Being aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2012, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner had deposited a sum of approximately Rs.57,000/- instead of Rs.27,700/-, which was due and payable, the petitioner should have been granted interest on the access amount deposited. Counsel further submits that again in the year 2007

petitioner deposited the lump-sum amount of Rs.77,931/- and he should have been awarded interest on this amount as well.

8. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner did not adhere to the terms of the standard allotment letter which was issued to a large number of allottees, who were successful in the NPRS, 1979. There is also no explanation as to why the petitioner did not deposit any amount between the year 1992 and 2007, and thereafter on his own petitioner decided to deposit a sum of Rs.77,931/-.

9. While disposing of the first writ petition, a Single Judge of this court had observed that it was not possible for the Courts to determine the correctness of the calculation in writ proceedings and thus the matter was referred to the Chief Financial Officer of the DDA. A bare reading of the order would show that the Chief Financial Officer of the DDA was to act as an independent person and he was to examine the respective claims of the parties. The petitioner being dissatisfied by the order of the Chief Financial Officer of the DDA filed a second Writ petition being [WP(C)No.5180/2011], which was also disposed of on 16.01.2011. While reiterating the earlier order which has been passed, another opportunity was granted to the petitioner to explain his case before Chief Financial Officer. The Chief Financial Officer of the DDA has thereafter passed a detailed and reasoned order with calculations.

10. The petitioner is unable to satisfy this court that there is any infirmity in the calculation and the order passed by the Chief Financial Officer, whereas it is the petitioner, who has chosen to draw his own path and decided to deposit the amounts, as per his own whims and

fancies and not as per the standard demand - cum - letter of allotment. There is no justification for the petitioner to have violated the terms of the standard allotment letter. In case every allottee is permitted to change the terms of allotment, it would virtually become impossible for the DDA to function. In any case the allotment pertains to the year 1990 and the petitioner has engaged the DDA into litigation on three occasions, and after deposit of 24 instalments it is the petitioner, who did not deposit monthly instalment from the year 1992 to 2007.

11. Accordingly, I find no grounds to entertain this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the petition and the application stand dismissed.

12. Having regard to the financial status of the petitioner, this court refrains from imposing costs in the matter. The petition and application are accordingly, dismissed.

G.S.SISTANI, J AUGUST 14, 2012 ssn