JITENDER YADAV Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to refund the entire registration amount after deducting surcharge as per clause 12 of the Brochure pertaining to the 'DDA Housing Scheme, 2008', alongwith interest payable @ 15% from the date when the petitioner had become entitled for the refund. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 2008, the respondent/DDA had floated the 'DDA Housing Scheme, 2008'. As per the Brochure, if a successful applicant wanted to surrender or seek cancellation of the allotted flat, he was required to pay cancellation charges in terms of Clause 12, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(2.) In the present case, the petitioner had applied for allotment of a flat under the aforesaid Scheme by submitting his application form on 10.09.2008 alongwith a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The draw of lots was held on 16.12.2008, wherein the petitioner was declared a successful allottee in respect of Flat No. 955, Block-D, Type-B, Pocket-3, Bindapur (Dwarka), New Delhi. On 20.11.2009, a demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner, wherein he was informed that the cost of the flat allotted to him was Rs. 28,39,210.86 paise. After the petitioner visited the locality where the flat had been allotted to him, he did not find it habitable. As a result, on 16.02.2010, he applied to the respondent/DDA informing that he wanted to surrender the flat in question and requested it to refund the registration amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs deposited by him alongwith his original documents.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that thereafter, he made a number of representations to the respondent/DDA and personally visited the office of the respondent/DDA for refund of the amount, but in July, 2010, the respondent/DDA refunded only a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner, while deducting the balance sum of Rs. 1 lac. The aforesaid cheque of Rs. 50,000/-was, however, not encashed and was returned by the petitioner on the ground that the said amount was far short of the amount liable to be refunded to him by the respondent/DDA in terms of the conditions stipulated in Clause 12 of the Brochure. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly wrote to the respondent/DDA and waited patiently for a long time, but to no avail. Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondent/DDA, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on 16.12.2010.