Rajni Rani vs Dda
2012 Latest Caselaw 1467 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C) 922/2010

                                           Date of Decision:01.03.2012

      IN THE MATTER OF:
      RAJNI RANI                                    ..... Petitioner
                    Through:        Ms.Richa Kapoor and Ms.Shraddha
                                    Bhargava, Advocates

                  versus


      DDA                                            ..... Respondent

                        Through:    Mr.M.K.Singh, Advocate


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter

alia for quashing of the impugned demand-cum-allotment letter dated

18.5.2007 in respect of the Commercial Unit bearing No.408, District

Centre, Laxmi Nagar and consequently direct the DDA to issue a fresh

demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the said unit at the cost

prevalent on the date of draw i.e. on 21.2.2007. In the alternative,

the petitioner has requested that the respondent DDA be directed to

allot one commercial unit to her by holding a draw of lots of shops out

of a preference of three markets to be given by the petitioner, from

the complete list of the new inventory for reserved category to be

supplied by the DDA, at the cost prevalent in February 2007.

2. Notice to show cause was issued on the present petition,

vide order dated 10.3.2010. On 10.11.2010, the following order was

passed:

"It is stated on instructions by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that shop No.408 allotted to the petitioner in District Centre, Laxmi Nagar has not been allotted to any other person and it is still lying vacant.

In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner states that without prejudice to his case, at this stage, the petitioner is prepared to deposit the entire cost of the shop in terms of the demand letter dated May 18, 2007, subject to the respondent refunding the excess amount, if any, found by the Court at the time of the final hearing of the writ petition along with interest as determined by the Court.

The learned counsel for the respondent/DDA on the other hand submits that the DDA will hand over the possession of the shop to the petitioner on her depositing the amount as claimed in the demand letter dated May 18, 2007 subject to the right of the DDA to raise further demand as per the rate prevalent on the date of the allotment.

Let the petitioner deposit the amount as raised in demand letter dated May 18, 2007 within eight weeks from now and upon the deposit so made, respondent shall hand over the possession of the shop to the petitioner within eight weeks.

As regards the other submissions of the counsels, the appropriate orders thereon shall be passed at the time of final disposal of the

writ petition.

Rule.

List the writ petition in due course."

3. It is stated that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated

10.11.2010, the petitioner had deposited the amount demanded by

the respondent DDA and raised in terms of the demand letter dated

18.5.2007.

4. On 23.1.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner had

suggested to the other side that a list of fresh inventory meant for the

SC/ST category be furnished to the petitioner and the costing of the

shops be done at the current cost as per the fresh list.

5. Today, learned counsel for the respondent/DDA states that

he has obtained instructions from the department that in the peculiar

facts and circumstances of the present case and to avoid any further

litigation, the petitioner may be given an opportunity for a fresh

allotment in lieu of the earlier shop allotted to her at District Centre,

Laxmi Nagar and the amount deposited by her against the earlier shop

would be adjusted by calling upon her to pay the current reserved

price for the shop in terms of the category to which she belongs as per

the applicable policy in that regard. Learned counsel for the

respondent/DDA also hands over the relevant extract of the noting file

of the department. The same is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid

suggestion is acceptable to the petitioner, however, it may be clarified

that the current reserved prices to be taken into consideration by the

respondent/DDA will be that which is prevalent on 1.3.2012.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by the counsel

for the parties, the present petition is disposed for with directions to

the respondent/DDA to furnish to the petitioner, a fresh list of shops

meant for the SC/ST category within a period of two weeks. The

petitioner shall examine the said list and give her three options to the

respondent/DDA within one week thereafter. Upon receiving the

options from by the petitioner, the respondent/DDA shall hold a mini

draw within two weeks and raise a demand on the petitioner by

applying the cost prevalent as on 1st March, 2012. The demand shall

be raised and communicated to the petitioner within a period of one

week from the date of holding of the draw of lots whereafter, she

shall make necessary compliances in terms of the letter issued by the

respondent/DDA. Possession of the shop that shall be allotted to the

petitioner shall be handed over to her within a period of two weeks

from the date of making the payment.

8. The petition stands disposed of while leaving the parties to

bear their own costs. It is clarified that the present order has been

passed in the peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as a

precedent in any other case.

A copy of order be given Dasti to the counsel for the

respondent.

                                                      HIMA KOHLI, J
MARCH    01, 2012
Sv/mk/sk