Delhi Development Authority vs Santosh Kumari Khanna
2013 Latest Caselaw 912 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      LPA 849/2012

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY           ..... Appellant
                    Through Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate


                         versus


       SANTOSH KUMARI KHANNA                 ..... Respondent
                   Through Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate



       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                            ORDER

% 22.02.2013

1. The respondent before us obtained registration with the appellant

DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS-1979) for

allotment of an MIG flat. The residential address disclosed by the appellant

in the application form was 6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi,

where she was residing at that time. Two occupational addresses were also

given by her - one of the place where, he was working as a teacher at that

time and from where she retired on 29th April, 2002 and the other of the

place where her husband was working at that time and where he still

continues to work.

2. In September, 1989, the respondent changed her residential address to

C-1/46, Malka Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, but did not intimate the change of

address to the DDA. On the priority accorded to the respondent maturing,

she was allotted an MIG flat by the DDA and a demand-cum-allotment letter

dated 29.12.1999 - 31.12.1999 was sent to the residential address disclosed

in the application form. Since the respondent had already shifted from there,

the aforesaid letter could not be delivered. No attempt was made by the

appellant DDA to send the demand-cum-allotment letter to the occupational

addresses given by the respondent. In July 2011, the respondent came to

know that all the registrants in NPRS-1979 had been made allotment. On

making enquiry from DDA, she was informed that an MIG flat was allotted

to her in September, 1999 and the allotment was cancelled due to non-

payment of the balance consideration. The respondent filed a writ petition

challenging the cancellation of the allotment made to her.

3. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 12th April,

2012, allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to hold mini draw

of lots for allotment of flat to the respondent and charge cost of the flat

prevalent at the time of original allotment along with interest @ 12% per

annum from the date of original allotment, till the date of issue of new

demand-cum-allotment letter. In passing this order, learned Single Judge

took the view that since the demand-cum-allotment letter sent at the

residential address had been received back undelivered, it was incumbent

upon the appellant to send the said letter to the occupational addresses of the

respondent available in its record. Being aggrieved from the order passed by

the learned Single Judge, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

4. Vide order dated 21.12.2012, a limited notice was issued by this Court

limited to the extent as to whether the cost to be paid by the respondent

should be as per the rate of the year 2011. The learned counsel for the

respondent fairly submits that the respondent is ready to pay the cost of the

flat as on 18th November, 2011 when the writ petition was filed. The

learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that the cost as

prevalent on the date when the impugned order was passed by the learned

Single Judge should be paid by the respondent. We find ourselves unable to

accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant for two

reasons - firstly, the notice issued to the respondent being limited to

payment of cost as per the rates of the year 2011, no direction can be passed

in this appeal for payment of cost prevalent on the date when the impugned

order was passed by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, there is no

justification for saddling the respondent with the increase in the cost of the

flat between the date of filing of the writ petition and the date on which the

impugned order was passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition

became necessary on account of an unreasonable stand taken by the

appellant, which, despite representation from the respondent did not make

any allotment to her. Therefore, no blame can be apportioned to the

respondent for the increase in the cost between the date of filing of the

petition and the date when the petition was allowed.

5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is disposed of with the

modification that the respondent shall pay the cost of the flat as on 18th

November, 2011, the date on which the writ petition was filed by her. The

allotment in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge shall be

made with four weeks from today.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 22, 2013 'raj'