Delhi High Court
Krishana Devi vs D.D.A on 22 April, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 22.04.2013
+ W.P.(C) 10522/2009
KRISHANA DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv with Ms Pratiti
Rungta and Mr Prashant Singh, Advs
versus
D.D.A ..... Respondent
Through: Mr Rakesh Mittal, Adv for DDA
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN
JUDGMENT
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner got herself registered with respondent-DDA for allotment of a
residential flat under its Ambedkar Awas Yojna Scheme (AAYS). Vide letter
bearing No. M312(2018)2001/AAY/DW dated 26-31/12/2001, the petitioner was
allotted flat No. A-19 in Pkt-A, Sector-17, Dwarka. He was required to deposit a
sum of Rs 400,493.35 on or before 30.01.2002. The aforesaid amount, along with
the amount of interest, stipulated in the said letter could also be deposited on or
before 31.03.2012. The allotment letter stipulated automatic cancellation of the
allotment in case the payment was not made by 31.03.2002. Admittedly, the
petitioner made payment only of Rs 20,000/- being the confirmation money and did
not deposit the balance amount in terms of the aforesaid allotment letter. As a result
of which, the clause for automatic cancellation of the allotment came into operation
and the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled.
2. Delhi Development Authority came out with a scheme for restoration of the
allotments which had been cancelled by it. Initially, the policy in this regard was
contained in circular No.HAU-IX/Delay/98/DDA/10-N dated 31.03.1990. The
policy, however, came to be revised vide office order dated 01.06.2000, which was
further modified vide DDA resolution 29/2005. Initially, the delay beyond one
year and six months could be condoned by the Vice-Chairman of DDA, but, in
terms of the Resolution No. 46/2001, it was decided that delay up to three years
could be condoned by the Vice-Chairman in deserving case though normally delay
beyond one year was not to be allowed. It was further decided that restoration
beyond three years could be permitted only in extremely deserving cases, by the
Vice-Chairman, with the approval of the Chairman.
3. The petitioner admittedly applied for restoration of the allotment after expiry
of three years from the date it got automatically cancelled in terms of the allotment
letter issued to him. Therefore, his request for restoration could be considered only
by the Vice-Chairman of DDA and in case he was satisfied that the case of the
petitioner in this regard was an extremely deserving case, he could restore the
allotment with the prior approval of the Chairman of the DDA.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent
states, on instructions, that the request of the petitioner for restoration of the
allotment was considered by Commissioner (Housing) and not by Vice-Chairman
of DDA. The consideration of the request of the petitioner by Commissioner
(Housing) would not be appropriate since he was not competent to take a decision
either way, on the request made by him. The question as to whether the case of the
petitioner was an extremely deserving case or not could be decided by none other
than the Vice-Chairman.
5. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the respondent
to place the request of the petitioner (a copy of which is available on page 46 of the
writ file), seeking restoration of the allotment before the Vice-Chairman of DDA,
within a period of four weeks from today. The Vice-Chairman would pass an
appropriate order on the aforesaid representation, within two weeks and shall
communicate the decision to the petitioner thereafter. No order as to costs.
Dasti.
V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 22, 2013
BG
