Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Rajiv Gupta on 31 October, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 31.10.2014
+ LPA No.571 of 2014
CM Nos.14305, 14306, 14307 & 14308 of 2014
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Sr. Standing Counsel,
DDA with Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Standing
Counsel, DDA and Mr. Amit Mehra, Adv.
versus
RAJIV GUPTA ..... Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.(Oral)
1. This Letters Patent Appeal impugns a judgment dated 23.8.2013
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.1415/2013
whereby the appellant/DDA has been directed to allot Flat No.108,
Second Floor, Pocket-2, Sector-23, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as Flat No. 108) and in the event of the said flat not
being available, an alternate flat in the same locality be allotted to
the petitioner (respondent herein) within eight (8) weeks thereof.
To balance the equities, the respondent herein had been directed to
pay the DDA, the cost of the flat along with simple interest @ 7
_______________________________________________________________________
per cent per annum from 27.4.2006 i.e., the date when the DDA
filed its affidavit before the District Consumer Redressal-II Qutub
Delhi Forum (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum').
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent had applied for
allotment of an MIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme,
1979 on 3.10.1979. He was declared successful in a computerised
draw of lots held on 29.11.2002 and Flat No. 74, Ground Floor,
Pocket-2, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Flat
No. 74) was allotted to him. However, subsequently Flat No.108
was allotted to him through a Demand-cum-Allotment letter dated
30.04.2003 which further stated that Flat No. 74 had been wrongly
allotted to him and in the event the amount asked for Flat No. 108
was not deposited by the stipulated date, the registration would
automatically stand cancelled. The respondent insisted upon being
allotted Flat No. 74 but the DDA failed to intimate any reason for
the change. Hence, the respondent sought redressal before the
District Forum where the DDA contended that the allotment of
Flat No.74 was a mistake and the inadvertent error had been
rectified within three (3) months by the DDA by allotting the
alternate flat bearing No.108. The Forum found the DDA deficient
_______________________________________________________________________
in services and awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner
towards compensation and costs. It also held that the DDA was
unjustified in allotting Flat No. 74, which was not in existence and
it owed a duty to the respondent (complainant therein) as an
allottee of a flat in the draw held on 29.11.2002. Thereafter, the
respondent sent the letter of acceptance for the subsequent
allotment of Flat No.108 and sought intimation about the amount
due and payable by him. The DDA, however, intimated the
respondent that he was not entitled to any flat because the Forum
had only directed payment of costs and no other relief,
3. Before the learned Single Judge, the DDA had contended that
allotment of the alternate Flat No.108 had been cancelled since the
respondent had failed to pay the requisite amount within the
stipulated period as demanded in their letter of 30.4.2003. After
hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single
Judge was of the view that to accept the DDA's argument that the
Forum had awarded only costs and no other relief to the
respondent would be placing a premium on DDA's negligence.
The learned Single Judge was further of the view that the Forum
clearly held the DDA to be deficient in services and awarded costs
_______________________________________________________________________
too but never held that the allotment of Flat No.108, in favour of
the respondent stood cancelled. Furthermore, the learned Single
Judge was of the view that prior to 27.4.2006, the DDA never
intimated the respondent as to why it had changed the allotment
from Flat No.74 to Flat No.108. Consequently, it was held that the
respondent was justified in not accepting Flat No.108 earlier.
Therefore, in the facts & circumstances of the case, it was held that
automatic cancellation of Flat No.108 would neither come into
operation nor would the respondent lose his right to allotment of
an alternate flat. In these circumstances, the DDA was directed to
allot the flat as aforesaid.
4. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge has been impugned
on the ground that the respondent did not adhere to the terms &
conditions contained in the letter dated 30.04.2003 for almost a
decade and the NPRS, 1979 under which the respondent was
allotted a flat was withdrawn after due publication in leading
newspapers. It is submitted that, therefore no allotment could
subsist in favour of the respondent as by his own default in not
complying with the Demand-cum-Allotment letter, the respondent
had waived his right to such allotment. The learned counsel for the
_______________________________________________________________________
appellant relies upon a judgment of this Court in LPA
No.277/2013 titled Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Kumar
Jain decided on 11.3.2014, in which the allottee had filed a writ
petition after six (6) years of closure of the NPRS. It is further
contended that the learned Single Judge erred in interpreting the
order of the Forum because it could not have recorded that the
complainant/respondent was not entitled to flat No.108 since such
a prayer was never made before the Forum.
5. From the narration of facts and submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant, it is evident that this is a case where the DDA
had consistently from 29.11.2002 i.e., the date of allotment till
27.4.2006 failed to intimate the reason as to why Flat No.74 was
not available. The respondent had insisted upon and sought
allotment of Flat No.74, which was shown to be allotted to him
through the results of the Draw of lots displayed on the Notice
Board of the DDA. Since the respondent's representation was
never decided by the DDA, he was forced to approach the Forum.
The Forum found DDA guilty of deficiency in services. However,
since Flat No. 74 was non-existent, the Forum could not grant the
respondent's prayer for allotment of the said flat. Quite clearly, the
_______________________________________________________________________
respondent's right to allotment of Flat No. 108 was not interfered
with by the order of the Forum. Instead, as the DDA was found to
be deficient in service, an amount of Rs. 15,000 was directed to be
paid to the respondent as costs and compensation. Therefore, the
DDA ought to have allotted an alternate flat. Since flat No.108 had
already been offered, therefore, the respondent opted for it and was
ready to pay the monies for it.
6. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondent was not
willing to pay the monies for Flat No. 108 which was allotted to
him. In fact, the respondent had all along been pursuing the matter
with the DDA. He had to knock the doors of the District Forum
because of lack of an appropriate response from the DDA. The
respondent had applied for a flat way back in 1979 and after 35
years, he is surely entitled to allotment of a flat.
7. This Court is of the view that the respondent did not lose his right
for allotment of a flat under the NPRS, 1979. The reasoning of the
learned Single Judge is unexceptionable. The appeal is without any
merit and has caused further undue delay in the allotment of a flat
as directed vide impugned judgment. The appeal is accordingly
_______________________________________________________________________
dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Delhi High
Court Staff Welfare Fund within eight (8) weeks from today.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
OCTOBER 31, 2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
b'nesh
_______________________________________________________________________
