R VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is in respect of allotment of flats by DDA for the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) category under the 6th Self-Financing Scheme. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while the scheme and in particular paragraph 5 thereof provides for a reservation of 25% of the flats for the persons belonging to SC/ST category, the draw of flats ought to have been done not in a composite manner but after segregating 17.5% for SC applicants and 7.5% for ST applicants. Paragraph 5 of the said scheme reads as under:-

(2.) Mr Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although the aforesaid paragraph clubs SC and ST applicants together and reserves 25% of the flats as a composite category, the general policy of the Government was to segregate the 25% into 17.5% for SC applicants and 7.5% for ST applicants. He submits that the reason for this was that if it were not so, then the overwhelming number of SC candidates might lead to a result where ST applicants don't get the desired number of reserved flats. In connection therewith learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon an affidavit filed by DDA in CW1512/1988 as well as an affidavit of DDA filed in CW167/1990 which are at pages 21 and 94 respectively of the Paper Book. Although these affidavits are in respect of allotment of shops, they do indicate that DDA had considered and accepted the position that 25% of the allotment of shops be distributed amongst SC and ST applicants in the break-up of 17.5% and 7.5% respectively. In fact, in the affidavit of DDA which has been filed in CW167/90 in paragraph 5 itself the DDA admits that separate reservations for SC and ST applicants was unobjectionable in principle but was likely to confront the DDA with the problem of undisposed flats in one category or the other. Anyhow, it seems that after due consideration of the matter, the DDA in its 9th Self-Financing Scheme in 1996 itself recognised this bifurcation and explicitly provided for 17.5% flats for persons belonging to SC and 7.5% for applicants belonging to ST category. The relevant paragraph under the 1996 scheme is as under:-

(3.) This petition was filed prior to the issuance of 9th Self-Financing Scheme in 1996. This petition was filed in 1993 when the 6th Self-Financing Scheme was in operation. However, it would be relevant to note that when the petition was filed on the first date of hearing, i.e., on 18.03.1993, this Court had directed the respondent to reserve one flat as per the petitioner's option. That flat has been kept reserved till date. It is an admitted position that the flats were ready for occupation in 1993 itself. Had the petitioner, who belongs to ST category, been granted or allotted the flat, she could have moved into the flat in 1993 itself. Thereafter, the DDA has not carried out any other development or construction activity in respect of the flat that has been reserved for the petitioner. On 15.12.2000 and 08.08.2001 this Court had directed the respondents to consider the entitlement of the petitioner and to report to the Court the result thereof. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the respondent DDA considered the entitlement of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that as a special case, it has been decided to allot a flat to the petitioner at the current cost and that the proposal had also been duly accepted by the Vice-Chairman and Lt. Governor, who is the Chairman of the DDA. This fact is recorded in an application filed on behalf of the DDA supported by an affidavit of Sh. D.B. Gupta, Commissioner (Housing), DDA dated 25.01.2002. That affidavit unfortunately is not on record but the counsel of both the sides have admitted the same and there is no dispute with regard to the making and filing of the same and a copy thereof has been handed over to the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent/DDA. The same is taken on record.