MALA GOEL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the subject matter involved in the present writ petitions is same and common, I propose to dispose of the said writ petitions by this common judgment and order.

(2.) The present writ petitions are directed against the demand made by respondent No. 4-Society demanding payment of an amount of Rs. 25,000/- from the petitioners as registration charges pursuant to Resolution dated 26.6.1994. It is stated in the writ petitions that the petitioners who purchased flats through general power of attorney and got the same registered in their names. They also obtained a letter of possession pursuant to which possession of flats at Ekta Garden were given to the petitioners. Subsequent thereto, a Resolution was passed by respondent No. 4 to the effect that all attorney holders would have to pay non-refundable charges of Rs. 25,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioners filed representations before the respondent No. 4-Society challenging validity of the aforesaid demand notices issued to the petitioners. The said representations were rejected by respondent No. 4-Society and hence the present petitions.

(3.) The petitioner appearing in person in C.W.P. No. 3085/1996 submits that the aforesaid demand notices issued to the petitioners by respondent No. 4-Society is illegal and without jurisdiction. She submits that in any event the said Resolution could only have prospective effect and could not have been given retrospective effect. She also submits that since the petitioners purchased the flats through general power of attorney and got the same registered in their names and also obtained letters of possession prior to the aforesaid date, the said Resolution cannot be given a retrospective effect.