Delhi High Court
Chhavi Aggarwal & Anr vs Delhi Development Authority on 16 April, 2024
Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
$~59 & 60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 159/2019
SURENDER SINGH DESWAL ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Ravi Kumar,
Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Anish Dhingra, Ms. Rupinder
Oberoi Dhingra and Mr. Nakul Ahuja,
Advocates for DDA
+ LPA 171/2019
CHHAVI AGGARWAL & ANR ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Ravi Kumar,
Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Standing
Counsel for DDA with Mr. Kuljeet
Singh, Advocate
% Date of Decision: 16th April, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ: (ORAL)
1. The present appeals have been filed under Clause X of the Letters
Patent of the then High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which stands
extended to the High Court of Delhi, assailing the common judgment dated
22nd January, 2019 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 2117/2011
and W.P. (C) 2396/2011 ('collectively referred to as 'writ petitions') only to
the extent that it directs that the subject flats will be offered by Respondent
to Appellants herein, on the price prevailing as on the date of allotment is
offered.
1.1. It is the stand of the Appellants that they are entitled to allotment of
respective flats at the cost which was prevalent on the date of filing of the
writ petitions. It is stated that since the Appellants filed the writ petitions on
28th March, 2011, the cost of the flats be determined as on 31st March, 2011.
1.2. The entitlement of the Appellants for an allotment to the flats is not in
dispute in the present appeals. The dispute is only with respect to the price
payable by the Appellants for the said flats.
Brief facts
2. In the year 2008, Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') i.e.,
Respondent herein introduced a scheme for allotment of residential flats in
Delhi titled as DDA Housing Scheme, 2008 ('DDA Scheme, 2008').
3. The Appellants were eligible to apply under the said scheme; and
accordingly, they applied to DDA. The applications were found in order and
accepted by DDA.
4. The Appellants were unsuccessful for allotment of a flat in the main
draw held for this Scheme on 16th December, 2008, however, the Appellants
were included in the waitlist of 200 candidates at serial nos. 41, 52 and 143,
respectively. The waitlist was to be maintained by DDA as per Clause 7 (III)
of DDA Scheme, 2008. The said Clause read as under:
"7. RESULT OF ALLOTMENT
...
Mr. Upin Batra in LPA No. 171 of 2019
Mr. Surender Singh Deswal in LPA No. 159 of 2019
Ms. Chhavi Aggarwal in LPA No. 171 of 2019
III. A separate waiting list of 200 applicants will also be declared in
order of priority. The waiting list will be valid only for 9 months from
the date of issue of demand letters. The registration money of the wait
listed registrants shall be refunded along with unsuccessful registrants.
However, before going for the draw in case the same takes place for
filling.; up the vacancies, all such eligible waitlisted shall be: asked to
deposit the registration money. 15 days time shall be given to them to do
so and only those names shall be included who would be depositing their
registration money prior to the draw. A draw will be held only once after
six months, from date of issue of demand letters, for allotment of the
surrendered flats to the wait listed registrants as per the priority decided
initially. Only those flats which are surrendered within six months from
date of issue of demand letters would be included for allotment to
waitlisted registrants. The waiting list is created just to ensure that the
surrendered flats (if any) are allotted to same registrants rather than
keeping them vacant and the list will be valid only for 9 months, hence it
doesn't create any right of the wait listed registrants if they fail to get a
flat from the surrendered ones. If successful, the cost would be the cost of
the flat on the date the demand cum-allotment letter is issued."
(Emphasis Supplied)
5. Due to surrender and cancellation by the initial allottees, 172 flats
became available to DDA for allotment under the DDA Scheme, 2008 to the
wait-listed candidates. However, contrary to the stipulation as per Clause
7(III) of the DDA Scheme, 2008, the DDA did not hold a draw for allotment
of the said 172 flats and sought to offer the said flats to applicants under a
new DDA Housing Scheme, 2010.
6. The representations filed by the Appellants were rejected by DDA and
therefore, the Appellants were constrained to file the underlying writ
petitions in the year 2011, seeking a writ of mandamus for directing the
DDA to hold a draw for the willing wait-listed candidates under the DDA
Scheme, 2008.
7. The Court passed an interim order and one flat for each of the
Appellants, was directed to be kept vacant. Thus, three flats have been
reserved for the Appellants herein.
8. In the interregnum, in a separate petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 4895/2011
titled Pinki Punia v. DDA, a learned Single Judge of this Court vide
judgment dated 29th April, 2013, in identical facts, held that in view of
Clause 7(III), the applicant in the wait-listed category prepared under DDA
Scheme 2008 was entitled to be offered allotment from the surrendered flats.
It was further directed that DDA will offer the flat at the price prevailing on
the date on which the allotment is offered to the applicant. The impugned
judgment records that the order in Pinki Punia (supra) has attained finality
as the SLP filed by the DDA stands dismissed.
9. In view of the aforesaid judgment in Pinki Punia (supra), since the
Appellants were identically placed, the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 04th April, 2016, directed the Respondent/DDA to issue allotment
letters in favour of the Appellants. Pertinently, at this stage itself, the
Appellants asserted that they are entitled to allotment of the flats on the price
in terms of Clause 7(III) of DDA Scheme, 2008, whereas DDA contended
that it would charge the price on the date of the issue of the allotment letter.
The learned Single Judge reserved the rights of DDA to examine the issue of
price but nonetheless, directed it to bring to Court the allotment letters on
16th May, 2016. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a statement was made by
DDA, which is noted in the order dated 11th July, 2016 that allotment letters
will be issued in favour of the Appellants within a period of two weeks.
However, it is a matter of record that DDA failed to comply with the orders
dated 04th April, 2016 and 11th July, 2016 passed in underlying writ
petitions. Thereafter, DDA filed an application seeking review of the order
dated 04th April, 2016, which was dismissed on 08th May, 2018. However,
despite the said dismissal, DDA failed to issue the allotment letters as
directed by the learned Single Judge.
10. The writ petitions remained pending and finally vide impugned
judgment dated 22nd January, 2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petitions in favour of the Appellants, directing the DDA to issue
allotment letters to each of the Appellants, for the flats reserved as per the
interim orders, with a direction that the flats will be offered to the
Appellants on the price prevailing on the date on which allotment is offered.
The operative portion of the impugned judgment read as under:
"12. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a statement was made by the learned
counsel for the DDA, which is noted in the order dated July 11, 2016 that
the petitioners including the petitioners in other writ petition being
W.P.(C) No. 2396/2011 shall be issued allotment letters within a period of
two weeks. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on November 04, 2016,
a submission was made by the learned counsel for the DDA that she has
instructions to file an application for recall / review of the order dated
April 04, 2016. Accordingly, the Review Petition was filed in these writ
petitions being Review Petition Nos. 524/2016 and 525/2016. The said
Review Petitions came to be dismissed by this Court on May 08, 2018. So,
the fact remains, the order dated April 04, 2016 has not been reviewed
and the same has attained finality. A perusal of the said order would
reveal that the Court had referred to the judgment in the case of Pinky
Punia (supra) being W.P.(C) No. 4895/2011 and has also concluded that
these cases are squarely covered by the judgment in that case. The only
aspect on which the matter was referred to the DDA was, whether the
petitioners are entitled to the allotment of the flat on the price in terms of
Clause 7.3 of the Housing Scheme, 2008 whereas according to the learned
counsel for the respondent, DDA would charge the price on the date of
issue of the allotment letter. Be that as it may, it is a conceded fact that the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has attained finality till
the Supreme Court, as the SLP filed by the DDA has been dismissed.
13. ...With utmost respect, the judgment has no application in the facts of
this case, more so when the judgment in the case of Pinky Punia (supra)
relates to the same Scheme, which is subject matter of the present
petitions. Hence, the said judgment relied upon has no applicability.
14. So, in view of the aforesaid position, since the case of Pinky Punia
(supra) also relates to the same Scheme, for parity of reasons, the
conclusion arrived at by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Pinky Punia (supra) shall also govern the present writ petitions as
well. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. It is directed that, in
terms of the interim order, the flats of the category in which the
petitioners had applied in the Scheme of 2008 and has been kept vacant
by the DDA, such flats would be offered to the petitioners on the price
prevailing on the date on which the allotment is offered to them within a
period of four months from today. It is made clear, if the registration
amount has been refunded back to any of the petitioners, the same shall
be repaid by the petitioners to the DDA with interest @ 6% p.a. within
four weeks from today. The further follow-up action shall be taken by
the petitioners accordingly. The writ petitions stand disposed of. No
costs."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. Thus, by the impugned judgment the learned Single Judge issued two
directions: (i) DDA was directed to offer the allotment of flats to the
Appellants; and (ii) the offer of allotment will be on the price prevailing on
the date of allotment.
12. DDA has accepted the impugned Judgment and has not preferred any
appeal.
13. The Appellants herein, as well are satisfied with the direction as
regards allotment of flats but are aggrieved with the direction that the offer
of allotment will be on the price prevailing on the date of allotment.
14. Learned counsel for the Appellants states that as is evident from the
record there has been no negligence by the Appellants in pursuing their
rights under the DDA Scheme, 2008. He states that it was the DDA that
failed to hold a draw of lots for the wait-listed candidates with respect to the
surrendered flats. He states that in ordinary course, if DDA would have
issued an allotment letter to the Appellants in the year 2009 when the flats
became available, the Appellants would have paid the price prevailing in the
year 2009, as per Clause 7(III) of the Scheme. He states that the Appellants
made representations to DDA to consider their right to allotment of flats,
however, DDA failed to act upon the said representations.
14.1. He states that all the Appellants approached the Court by filing writ
petitions in March, 2011. He states that in the facts of this case as is evident
from this case that the pendency of this writ petitions from 2011 to 2019 was
on account of acts and omissions of DDA, as is evident from the orders
dated 04th April, 2016, 11th July, 2016, 04th November, 2016 and 08th May,
2018 passed in underlying writ petitions.
14.2. He states that the Appellants should be made liable to pay the price
prevailing as on the date of approaching the Court in March, 2011 and not
thereafter. He relies upon the common judgment of the Division Bench of
this Court in LPA No. 743/2013 and connected matters titled as Delhi
Development Authority Vs. Mahinder Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through LR4
dated 28th November 2013, wherein in similar facts, the Division Bench held
that the petitioners therein were liable to pay the price of the flat prevailing
on the date of filing of the writ petition, as the petitioner cannot be faulted
for the time taken by the Courts in adjudication. He states that the SLP filed
by the DDA against the said judgment has been dismissed.
15. In reply, learned counsel for the Respondent states that the he does
not dispute the entitlement of the Appellants to allotment of the subject flats.
He states that however, since the Appellants herein were applicants under
the DDA Scheme, 2008 and the learned Single Judge in Pinki Punia (supra)
while dealing with an applicant under the same DDA Scheme, 2008 directed
that the allotment of a flat on the price prevailing on the date of allotment, to
maintain parity, no distinction should be carved out in favour of the
Appellants herein.
15.1. He states that in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), the Division Bench was
2013:DHC:6154-DB
concerned with the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 ('NPRS'),
which is distinct from the DDA Scheme, 2008.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
17. The finding of the learned Single Judge as regards the entitlement of
the Appellants to the allotment of the flats, reserved by interim orders, is
admitted by the DDA and the said issue has attained finality.
18. The only issue surviving for consideration before us, is the price at
which the allotment of the respective flats is to be offered to the Appellants.
19. The Appellants contend that since they have succeeded in the writ
petitions against DDA, they are entitled to allotment at the price prevailing
as on the date of filing of the writ (i.e., March, 2011). The legal basis for the
said contention is the principle that the litigant should not be burdened for
the time taken by the Court and its legal process to adjudicate the claims of
the petitioner.
20. The Respondent DDA on the other hand is simplicitor relying upon
the judgment of learned Single Judge in Pinki Punia (supra) to support the
direction passed in the impugned judgment.
21. In the facts of this case, the Appellants were eligible wait-listed
applicants as per Clause 7(III) of the DDA Scheme, 2008 and were
therefore, entitled to offer of allotment of flats in the year, 2009-2010, when
surrendered flats became available with the DDA. Since DDA failed to offer
the flats to the wait-listed candidates in breach of Clause 7(III) of the DDA
Scheme, 2008 the Appellants, first, made representations to DDA to make
allotments and upon failure of DDA, approached this Court in March, 2011
by filing separate writ petitions.
22. The issue of the wrong doing of DDA in failing to offer flats to wait-
listed candidates stood established by the judgment of Pinki Punia (supra),
which is dated 29th April, 2013. However, despite the said finding of the
Court, DDA did not concede to the prayers made by the Appellants herein in
the underlying writ petitions for allotment in their favour.
23. As noted above, the learned Single Judge vide orders dated 04 th April,
2016, 16th May, 2016 and 11th July, 2016 directed DDA to issue allotment
letters in favour of the Appellants in view of the decision in Pinki Punia
(supra). However, DDA wilfully failed to comply with the said directions
and finally the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 22 nd
January, 2019 reiterated its direction for allotment of flats in favour of the
Appellants.
24. However, while directing the allotment, the learned Single Judge held
that the said allotment shall be offered, on the prevailing price on the date of
offer of allotment ('impugned direction'). The effect of the impugned
direction is that while DDA, despite being held guilty of wrong doing, will
not suffer any financial consequences for dragging the litigation from 2011
to 2019; the Appellants on the other hand will have to bear the financial
burden despite having succeeded in the writ petitions.
25. As noted above, DDA was granted several opportunities to rectify its
action and grant allotment to the Appellants by the learned Single Judge
since 2016; however, DDA wilfully failed to comply and prolong the
determination. In fact, after the judgment of Pinki Punia (supra) in the year
2013 itself DDA was made aware about the incorrectness of its action in not
offering the surrendered flats to the wait-listed applicants. However, DDA
persisted with its stand and wrongfully deprived the Appellants of the
allotment.
26. In our opinion, in the aforenoted facts where all wrong doing lies at
the door-step of DDA, the challenge of the Appellants to the impugned
directions is well merited and this issue has been well-settled by several
judgments of this Court. The Division Bench in Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra)
categorically held that the price for allotment of flat payable by a successful
writ petitioner, would be the one prevalent on the date, the writ petition is
filed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment read as under:
"2. The facts giving rise to these orders are that the writ petitioners (the
Respondents in the present appeals, but referred to collectively as the
"writ petitioners") before the learned Single Judges had registered for
allotment of MIG flats under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979
("NPRS"). Each writ petitioner was allotted a flat by a demand-cum-
allotment letter issued by the DDA, but in each case, the letter was
returned to the DDA undelivered. Subsequently, each writ petitioner
became aware of the allotment, either at a public hearing in the office of
the DDA or through the internet, and requested the DDA to allot the flat
in their favour. The DDA, however, rejected such applications on the
ground that since the letter was sent to the residential address- but not
received by the allottee-, and in each case, a public notice was released by
the DDA, the cancellation of the allotment was legal and not liable to be
interfered with.
...
5. The learned Single Judge, through an order dated 30.10.2012 allowed
the writ petition, and subsequently, by an order dated 12.04.2013 in
pursuance of an application filed by Mrs. Chawla, modified the earlier
order to the extent that the DDA be directed to allot the alternative flat to
Mrs. Chalwa at the cost of February, 2010, when the writ was filed, as
opposed to the circular dated 13.10.2011.
...
18. Equally, the holdings in the various decisions on the appeal present
that that the payment for the plot will be made as per the price on the
date of filing the writ, and not as per the Circular dated 13.10.2011,
cannot be faulted, given the established principle to the effect that the
clock in terms of the price to be paid stops at the time of approaching the
Court for the appropriate remedy, and the matter at that point rests with
the Court and not in the hands of the writ petitioners."
(Emphasis Supplied)
27. To the same effect, the Division Bench in Nanak Chand v. Delhi
Development Authority5 in LPA Nos. 193/2014 and 298/2014, decided on
21st August, 2014, while setting aside the direction of the learned Single
Judge fixing the date of passing of the judgment as the cut-off date on the
price of the flat, held that such a direction was contrary to law. The Division
Bench held that the writ petitioner has an unqualified legal right for
allotment of flat on the price prevailing as on the date of filing of the writ
petition. The Special Leave Petitions6 filed by DDA against the said
judgment stands dismissed by the Supreme Court of India vide order dated
6th February, 2015. The relevant portion read as under:
"1. The appellant, Nanak Chand, has impugned the judgement and order
of the learned Single Judge passed on 17.12.2013, which, by a writ of
mandamus directed the DDA to "allot a flat of equivalent size preferably
in the same area, i.e. Dwarka, New Delhi, at the price prevalent on the
date of the order within a period of twelve (12) weeks".
...
2. The appellant contends that the difference between the price prevalent
on the date of filing the writ petition (20.12.2012) and the date of its
disposal (17.12.2013) is substantial. He submits that the price has
increased by Rs.7-8 lakhs, hence, he would be irretrievably prejudiced if
he is asked to pay the higher price prevalent on the date of the impugned
order. He contends that the learned Single Judge, in an earlier case, had
directed a flat to be allotted to the petitioner at the price prevalent on the
date of filing of the writ petition. He relied upon a judgement of this Court
in LPA No.743/2013 titled Delhi Development Authority Vs. Mahinder
Pal Sikri (Deceased) Through LRs decided on 28.11.2013 and on another
judgement in LPA No.628/2013 titled Dev Raj Vs. Delhi Development
Authority decided on 19.2.2014. Both the judgements held, in similar
circumstances, that the flat should be allotted at the price obtaining on the
date the writ petition had been filed.
...
7. We notice that the learned Single Judge had fixed the date of passing of
the impugned order as the cut-off date on which the price prevalent would
be applicable. This was premised on the counsel for the petitioner offering
his no objection in accepting the allotment on that basis. We also note that
the query was put by the Court, but the question remains: would it be fair
to put a query to the petitioner's counsel which could compromise the
2014:DHC:4031-DB
S.L.P (C) Nos. 918/2015 and 919/2015
petitioner's legal rights? This court is of the view that where the allotment
was delayed on account of fault of DDA as has been held in Mahinder Pal
Sikri (supra), Dev Raj (supra) and Ms. Prem Bhatnagar (supra) the
applicant/petitioner cannot be burdened with the cost prevailing on the
day when the writ petition was disposed off. Instead the price payable
ought to be one as on the day the doors of the court were knocked at.
8. The same principle would be applicable to the present appellant. On the
application of principle and analogy of Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), Dev
Raj (supra) and Ms. Prem Bhatnagar (supra) the petitioner's right is
established. This right which was prejudiced, was sought to be enforced
through a writ of mandamus. Such legal right cannot be modified by a
concession of counsel. The petitioner would be entitled to seek the
enforcement of his complete legal right. The learned Single Judge fell into
an error in fixing the price prevalent on the date of the impugned order
only on the concession of the petitioner's counsel. The courts would
exercise caution and see that when the legal right is unqualified it ought
not to be qualified or lessened because of a concession by the litigant
because the grant or enforcement of the legal right is not contingent upon
the petitioner's concession or her settling for something less. A litigant
would ordinarily not make a concession unless he/she feels compelled to.
Where a petitioner knows that his right against the State is absolute he
would never forgo or settle for anything lesser. The Courts would,
therefore, enforce a petitioner's complete legal rights in full measure
without any unwarranted mitigation.
9. The appellant is entitled to be treated as per the consistent view taken
by this Court. The price for allotment of the flat would be the one
prevalent on the date the writ petition was filed. The time taken in
adjudication of the writ petition cannot be attributed to the petitioner
thus causing him to pay higher cost of the flat, as far as a petitioner is
concerned the clock stops ticking the day he filed the writ petition.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court directs that the appellant Nanak
Chand be allotted a flat of equivalent size at the price prevalent on the
date he filed the writ petition. The LPA No.193/2014 is allowed.
Logically, therefore, DDA‟s LPA No.238/2014 which impugns the order
against the Nanak Chand's established legal right, is rejected. No order
as to costs."
(Emphasis Supplied)
28. Similarly, the Division Bench in Dev Raj v. Delhi Development
Authority7 in LPA No. 625/2013 decided on 19th February, 2014, while
dealing with the Special Housing Registration Scheme known as Ambedkar
Awas Yojna, while setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge
directed DDA to allot a flat at the rates applicable on the date of filing of the
writ petition. The relevant paras read as under:
"1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against order
dated 11.07.2013 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant.
The writ petition was filed seeking a writ of certiorari for
quashing the action of respondent/DDA in cancelling the
allotment of a flat to the petitioner and in declining to restore
and make alternative allotment at old rate as per policy. Other
connected reliefs were also sought.
...
2.The appellant states that on 29.12.1989 registered with DDA
under its Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST
known as Ambedkar Awas Yojna for allotment of an MIG flat.
Registration fee of `12000 was deposited.
...
15. In view of the above we set aside the impugned order of the
learned Single Judge and allow the appeal. We direct the DDA
to allot a similar flat in the same area/zone at the rates as
applicable on the date the appellant filed the writ petition."
(Emphasis Supplied)
29. The aforesaid judgments of the Division Bench have consistently held
that the writ petitioner who has succeeded in the writ petition is entitled to
allotment of flat at the price prevailing on the date of filing of the writ
petition. The legal principle forming the basis of the said direction has been
explained in the judgment of Nanak Chand (supra) and is well founded in
law. In the facts of this case, as noted above the delay in the offer of
allotment of the flat from 2009 to 2019 rests entirely with DDA. The price
2014:DHC:922-DB
of the flat as on 28th March, 20118 and as on 22nd January, 2019, when the
impugned judgment was passed is bound to be astronomically higher
considering the prevailing rates in the State of Delhi. There is no discernible
distinction in the DDA Scheme, 2008 as compared to the Housing Schemes,
which were considered by the coordinate Benches in the aforesaid
judgments so as to justify the impugned direction to the Appellants herein to
pay the price of the flat prevailing on the date on which the allotment is
offered.
30. The direction in Pinki Punia (supra) to offer the flats at price
prevailing on the date on which allotment is offered was passed in order
dated 29th April, 2013, whereas, the judgments of the Division Bench in
Mahinder Pal Sikri (supra), Nanak Chand (supra) and Dev Raj (supra)
have been delivered thereafter; and therefore, the Court in Pinki Punia
(supra) did not have a benefit of the said judgments.
31. However, to balance the interest of both parties, we are of the opinion
that the Appellants should pay reasonable interest to DDA on the 'principal
amount' [i.e., the price of their respective flats, prevailing on the date of
filing of the petition]. Learned counsel for the Appellants states on
instructions that the Appellants are ready and willing to bear the interest for
the period 22nd January, 20199 until the date of payment. He states that for
the period prior thereto the Appellants should not be made liable. We are
unable to accept this submission of the Appellants, since the sale
consideration amount remained with the Appellants and it would be
equitable that a reasonable interest on the said amount for the duration of the
pendency of both, the writ and appeals. This is also in consonance with the
The date of filing of the writ petitions.
direction of payment of interest at 6% p.a. issued by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment at paragraph 14, to which there is no
challenge by the Appellants or the Respondent.
32. Accordingly, in the present cases it is directed that the Appellants will
be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% simple interest p.a. on the principal
amount, for the entire period of the pendency of the writ petitions and
appeals, till the date of full payment.
33. We accordingly, in the present cases direct that the Appellants be
allotted their respective flats by DDA at the price prevalent on the date of
filing of the writ petitions. The Respondent-DDA is directed to offer the
allotment letters to the Appellants within four weeks from the date of
pronouncement of this judgment along with computation of interest at 6%
simple interest p.a., from the date of filing of the writ petition. The
Appellants are directed to deposit the price of the flat, with interest, with the
Respondent-DDA within four weeks of receipt of allotment letter.
34. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. Pending applications stand
disposed of.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
APRIL 16, 2024/hp/MG
The date of the impugned judgment
