BINOJ CHERIAN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in these petitions is to the policy dated 5th November 2008 and a consequent decision contained in circular dated 24th March 2009 of the Delhi Development Authority ("DDA") to the effect that the benefit of refund of 20% surcharge consequent upon the judgment dated 13th December 2007 of the Supreme Court in Renu Bali v. DDA, would be given only to original allottees and not the purchasers/general power of attorney (GPA) holders. The consequent decision of the Settlement Committee headed by the Chief Legal Adviser, DDA taken at the meeting of the said Committee on 21st August 2009 rejecting the cases of the Petitioners for refund of 20% surcharge is also under challenge.

(2.) The Petitioners are purchasers of flats constructed by the Respondent DDA under the Self-Finance Scheme ("SFS") at Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. In 1992 the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi ("GNCTD") notified a conversion policy declaring the said flats to be freehold. It is stated that the sale transactions through power of attorney were recognized by imposing a penalty and collecting additional conversion charges. The flats in question were sold even before the final demand letter was issued by the DDA. The final demand letter required the original allottee to pay the current cost and also 20% surcharge over the disposal cost. Subsequently, on 23rd January 2001 DDA decided that while original allottees who had made payments upto 22nd August 1996 would be charged the old cost plus interest, the purchasers would not even if they had made payments by that date. These demand letters were challenged in and batch and filed in this Court. In Smt. Renu Bali v. Delhi Development Authority, 2003 108 DLT 392, a learned Single Judge partly allowed the petition quashing the decision of the DDA to charge current cost from purchasers. The levy of 20% surcharge over and above the disposal cost was upheld. As regards the demand of current cost, the learned Single Judge held that no distinction could be made between original allottees and the purchasers, i.e. power of attorney holders.

(3.) Against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, both the DDA as well as the private individuals preferred appeals. In Smt. Renu Bali v. DDA, 2006 128 DLT 204, a Full Bench of this Court disposed of the LP As upholding the part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge with respect to 20% surcharge and modify the portion concerning payment of current cost. However, that part of the judgment of the Single Judge which invalidated the charging of current cost from the purchasers (power of attorney holders) was not modified.