Delhi High Court
Lalit Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 March, 2012
Author: Sunil Gaur
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI
Reserved on : February 27, 2012
Pronounced on : March 19, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 13052/2009
LALIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikram Saini, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Pooja Bahuguna, Advocate for
Ms.Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
%
ORDER
19.03.2012
1. Petitioner-Lalit Kumar is the son of Sh. Madan Singh who was
allotted LIG Flat No. 52, Ground Floor in Sarai Khalil under NPRS-
1979 on the basis of computerized draw lots on 27 th September, 2002.
Demand-cum-Allotment Letter was sent to Sh. Madan Singh on 13th
January, 2003 on the last available address but it was returned back
undelivered with postal remark -"on enquiry it was found that no such
person lives on this address" i.e. at E-129, Nehru Vihar, Delhi.
Thereafter, allotment letter of 13th January, 2003 (Annexure-P-5) was
sent to the allottee i.e. petitioner's father at his occupational address i.e.
WZ-138, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi and it was returned back with
the postal remarks "no such person is there". The allottee-Madan Singh
had expired on 4th August, 2004 and the petitioner had sought mutation
of the aforesaid allotment in his name and on 5th October,2004 vide
letter(Annexure P-4) aforesaid flat stood transferred in the name of the
petitioner who was called upon by the respondent to deposit the balance
W.P. (C) No.13052/2009 Page 1
payment along with documents for taking the possession of the aforesaid
flat.
2. Petitioner vide letter of 31st December, 2004 (Annexure P-6) had
sought extension of time to deposit the payment in respect of the flat in
question as he was short of money. Vide Communication of 1st February,
2005 respondent had intimated the petitioner that two years had already
lapsed and no extension can be granted as per policy and fortnight time
was granted to the petitioner, to deposit the cost of flat and to take
possession of the flat.
3. On 10th March, 2005 respondent had called upon the petitioner to
deposit the balance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- immediately, failing which,
allotment of the flat shall be cancelled without any further reference.
Again, vide Communication of 2nd June, 2005 (Annexure P-12),
respondent had reminded the petitioner that balance cost of flat of Rs.
4,00,000/- was still outstanding. Ultimately, vide Communication of 1st
May, 2006 (Annexure P-15), respondent had cancelled the allotment of
the flat in question which was allotted to the next waiting registrant.
4. On 25th May, 2006 petitioner had made representation
(AnnexureP-16) to the respondent seeking restoration of the flat in
question upon deposit of the balance amount with reasonable dues.
Restoration of the flat in question was declined to the petitioner by the
respondent vide Communication of 8th June, 2006 (Annexure P-17).
However, at the public hearing afforded by the Vice Chairman of DDA,
petitioner was purportedly told that he would be allotted another LIG flat
under the revised policy of "Death Case" by draw of lots. Accordingly,
in the computerized draw of lots on 15th January, 2009, petitioner was
successful in obtaining allotment of Flat No.113 at Ground Floor in
Pocket 14, Sector 20, Rohini and the last date for making the payment
was 20th November, 2009.
W.P. (C) No.13052/2009 Page 2
5. Petitioner in this writ petition has impugned aforesaid Demand-
cum-Allotment Letter (Annexure P-21) on the ground that respondent is
illegally charging the current cost of the flat instead of old cost of the flat
as was prevalent in January, 2003 when petitioner's father was allotted
the flat in question.
6. According to petitioner's counsel, the possession of the flat
allotted to petitioner's father could not be taken as the said flat was in
dilapidated condition and since an option was given in the Order of 6th
January, 2003 (Annexure P-13) passed in Civil Writ No.5757/2002 to
such allottees of the flats to have their seniority maintained as per their
original booking and they would be allotted flats in due course and
therefore, the impugned allotment has to be at the old cost and not at the
current cost.
7. It was argued by petitioner's counsel that in case of mutation on
account of death of the allottee, interest chargeable is @ 7%
compounded annually from the date of issue of letter by DDA to the
legal heirs to produce the documents for mutation in order to work out
old cost plus interest and when the delay is on the part of the DDA, then
the allotment of the alternate flat has to be at the old cost and not at the
current cost.
8. A preliminary objection taken in the counter affidavit by
respondent-DDA is as under:-
"Preliminary submission
At the outset it is stated that no cause of action arises for
filing the present writ petition since the demand letter dated
18.5.09 - 24.05.09 has been issued at the cost of 2003 as
prayed for by the petitioner and not at the current cost of
2009. Since, this is the very prayer sought by the petitioner
in the present writ petition, the writ petition no longer
survives and has become infructuous.
W.P. (C) No.13052/2009 Page 3
A copy of the calculation sheet showing the basis of costing
is annexed hereto as Annexure R-1."
9. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it is asserted that there is no
policy of DDA to charge 15% interest after two years of issuing
Demand-cum-Allotment Letter in death case and the interest chargeable
is of 7% compounded annually and not 15%.
10. In the Calculation Sheet (Annexure R-1) appended to the counter
affidavit of the respondent, it is clearly mentioned that compound
interest @ 7% on the disposal cost is computed upto period of two years
and for a period beyond two years, interest @ 15% is chargeable.
11. At the hearing, petitioner's counsel was not able to draw attention
of this Court to any policy of DDA, which prohibits charging of interest
@ 15% after two years of issuing Demand-cum-Allotment Letter, which
in the instant case was issued in May, 2009. Upon perusal of calculation
sheet (Annexure R-1), it becomes clear that the disposal cost of the flat
allotted vide Communication (Annexure P-21) has been worked out at
the cost in the year 2003, as the instant case is of restoration because the
petitioner was unable to deposit the balance cost towards the flat allotted
in the year 2003 vide Annexure P-7.
12. In the light of the afore-going narration, this Court finds that
Demand-cum-Allotment Letter (Annexure P-21) does not suffer from
vice of any arbitrariness and so, this petition deserves rejection.
Accordingly this petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
March 19, 2012.
hk/pkb
W.P. (C) No.13052/2009 Page 4
