Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority
2012 Latest Caselaw 4153 Del

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

%                       Date of Decision : 13th July, 2012

+                       LPA 47/2012

      ASHOK KUMAR                             ..... Appellant
          Represented by: Mr.B.L.Chawla, Advocate.

                        versus

      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY           ..... Respondent
          Represented by: Ms.Renuka Arora, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

% PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (ORAL)

C.M.No.1174/2012
1.    For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 13
days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2.    Application stands disposed of.
C.M.No.1175/2012
1.    For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 65
days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.
2.    Application stands disposed of.
LPA No.47/2012
1.            Late Sumer Chand, father of the petitioner was a
registrant under the New Pattern Residential Scheme 1979
floated by DDA for being allotted a flat in the Low Income
Group.
2.            Unfortunately for Sumer Chand, number of eligible
applicants being large, he was assigned a priority number, as
were all others. As and when flats were constructed by DDA,
names of eligible candidates, as per the priority number

LPA 47/2012                                             Page 1 of 4
 assigned to them, were entered in a draw of lots and a flat was
allotted. Sumer Chand's entitlement matured in March 2006,
but unfortunately for Sumer Chand, he had expired on
September 03, 2004.       The appellant, who is son of Sumer
Chand applied to DDA belatedly on February 21, 2006 seeking
his name to be substituted as the successor in interest of his
father as an eligible applicant. To appellant's misfortune, he
did not furnish the relevant papers pertaining to his claim of
having succeeded to the estate of his father and admittedly
appellant's mother Champa Devi was the other natural heir of
Sumer Chand.       It was only by June 29, 2009 that appellant
made good the deficiencies with respect to his claim for
substitution and thus mutation was sanctioned in his name on
said date. In the meanwhile, Sumer Chand's entitlement for
name to be entered in a draw of lots having matured by March
2006, at a draw of lots held on March 23, 2006 a LIG flat was
allotted to him and for which a demand cum allotment letter
dated July 22, 2006 was issued to him requiring him to pay
`7,94,602.46 by October 18, 2006; and inspite of the demand
cum allotment letter being received by the appellant he made
no payment; probably for the reason his name was still under
consideration for being substituted as the successor in interest
of his father.
3.            On account of no payment being made for the LIG
flat allotted in the name of Sumer Chand, DDA proposed to
cancel the allotment but ultimately decided not to cancel the
same; on the term that appellant would pay the current costs
for the flat in question and for which DDA demanded
`11,66,434/- to be paid by November 09, 2010.
4.            Appellant challenged the demand, pleading in the
writ petition, that since his name was pending substitution on
death of his father, DDA could not revised the demand.
LPA 47/2012                                          Page 2 of 4
 5.            The writ petition has been dismissed on account of
the reason, firstly appellant sought mutation belatedly: his
father having died on September 03, 2004 and substitution
being sought on February 21, 2006; secondly the reason the
application seeking substitution was defective and deficiencies
were made good on June 29, 2009 and lastly the reason that
appellant could have deposited the price demanded by DDA
pending his name being substituted as the successor in
interest of his father.     The learned Single Judge has also
reasoned that DDA had incurred the capital costs towards
construction and would have lost interest if said amount was
kept in a deposit by DDA.
6.            It is true that the appellant was negligent in
pursuing his claim, but in harmony with the ethos of the
decision impugned, we see no reason why DDA should not be
recompensed with interest, rather than to permit DDA to take
advantage of the rise in cost of land for the same flat which
was allotted to appellant's father way back in the year 2006.
We highlight that DDA had constructed the flat in the year
2006 and while making the allotment in said year had charged
for the cost of construction incurred and the market value of
the land, albeit at pre-determined rates, proportionate to the
covered area of the flat.     It is not that DDA had to acquire
another parcel of land at a higher rate and then construct a
flat for the appellant.
7.            Learned counsel for the appellant states that the
appellant is ready and willing to pay interest @ 10% per
annum from the date payment had to be made pursuant to the
demand cum allotment letter July 22, 2006 and concedes that
the last date for making payment was October 18, 2006.
8.            The appeal stands disposed of setting aside the
impugned order and disposing of W.P (C) 732/2011 filed by the
LPA 47/2012                                           Page 3 of 4
 appellant directing that appellant would be liable to pay
`7,94,602.46 to DDA together with simple interest @ 10% per
annum commencing from October 19, 2006 till date of
payment.       We note that under the impugned order the
appellant was granted time upto November 25, 2011 to make
the payment demanded by DDA, and the appellant claims to
have made good the payment.         We thus direct DDA to
compute interest as afore directed and off-set the same with
respect to the amount deposited by the appellant and if it is
found that an amount in excess is deposited, to refund the
same.
9.            No costs.


                                 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

MANMOHAN SINGH, J. JULY 13, 2012 KA