LALIT MOHAN BHARATI Vs. D.D.A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner before this Court applied to DDA for allotment of a shop under its scheme for allotment of such shops to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes on leasehold basis. In the draw of lots held on 12.08.1998, one shop/stall bearing No. 8 in CSC, Timarpur, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner and vide demand cum allotment letter dated 09.12.1988, he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs 19,045/- towards 25% of the reserved price of the aforesaid shop. The aforesaid amount was duly deposited by the petitioner. Later on, there was an additional demand of Rs 13,195/- which was also duly deposited by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 23.10.1997, DDA informed the petitioner that the allotment made to him had been cancelled on account of his failure to deposit the demanded amount of Rs 19,045/-. Since, in fact, the petitioner had already deposited the amount demanded by DDA, the cancellation of the aforesaid allotment was obviously uncalled for and unjustified.

(2.) ON the petitioner representing in this regard for the first time on 14.02.2002 followed by various other representations, DDA vide demand cum allotment letter dated 24.04.2012 allotted a shop measuring 38.840 square metres along with courtyard measuring 9.690 square metres to him at the price of Rs 43,66,545/- Being aggrieved from DDA demanding the price prevalent in the year 2012, the petitioner is before this Court. The only relief claimed in this petition is quashing of the demand letter dated 24.04.2012 with a direction to DDA to issue revise demand cum allotment letter in respect of the shop subject matter of the demand letter dated 24.04.2012 or by holding a mini draw and allotting one of the shops out of the auctions given by the petitioner at old cost as prevalent in the year 1988.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the allotment made in the year 1988 came to be cancelled without any fault on the part of the petitioner, DDA, while making allotment of shop measuring 38.84 square metres to him, should have charged at the price prevalent in the year 1988 when the initial allotment was made to him. This, in my view, would not be justified for the simple reason that the size of the shop allotted to the petitioner in the year 1988 was only 11.37 square metres. The petitioner, therefore, cannot insist upon allotment of a much bigger shop measuring 38.84 square metres at the cost prevalent in the year 1988, his right being only to a shop of equal size though at the price prevalent in the year 1988. Therefore, DDA, in my view, is justified in offering allotment of shop measuring 11.37 square metres to the petitioner at the price prevalent in the year 1988.