SUSHMA PATIL Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by a demand letter dated 24.10.2007 and communication dated 23.11.2007 addressed by the respondent/DDA to her and prays for setting aside the same. Vide demand letter dated 24.10.2007, the petitioner was allotted a car garage No.20, Sector 22, Pocket-1, Dwarka in the SFS Residential Scheme and was called upon to pay a sum of `4,62,283/- towards the cost of the car garage. It was stated in the said demand letter that if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount demanded in terms of the aforesaid letter, the allotment would automatically stand cancelled after 21.02.2008. Vide letter dated 23.11.2007, the request of the petitioner for charging the rate of construction of the car garage at the rate prevalent time of allotment of the garage, was declined by the respondent/DDA and she was called upon to deposit the demanded amount within the period as stipulated in the demand letter.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that without prejudice to her rights, the petitioner had deposited a sum of `4,62,283/- with the respondent/DDA in terms of the demand letter dated 24.10.2007 as recorded in the order dated 12.12.2007, whereafter the car garage was duly handed over to her.

(3.) COUNSEL for the respondent/DDA opposes the present petition and submits that the public notice issued by the respondent/DDA in the year 2001 for allotment of car garage in Sector 22, Pocket-1, Dwarka (SFS) had stipulated that applications were invited from the original allottees in the said pocket, in which the car garage was located and only such allottees were eligible to apply. He further states that it was clarified that preference was to be given to the upper floor allottees over the ground floor allottees and in the present case, as the petitioner is a ground floor allottee, she could not claim any preference. He submits that the manner laid down for the allotment of the car garage was that in case there was more than one applicant for one garage, the allotment would be made by way of a computerized draw. In compliance with the order dated 10.07.2007, passed in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, the respondent/DDA considered her case afresh and since there was no specific direction in the aforesaid order to allot the car garage to the petitioner at the cost prevailing in the year 2001, it levied the current cost as per its prevalent policy and raised the impugned demand on her.