PARWATI Vs. D.D.A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LATE Shri Suraj Pal Verma, husband of the petitioner got himself registered for allotment of a residential flat with DDA under its New Pattern Registration Scheme-1979 (NPRS-79). Late Shri Suraj Pal Verma died on 12.8.1988. In a draw of lot held on 14.3.1990, a residential flat bearing number 67D, Type-II, Pocket-A- 3, GRP 1&2, Ist Floor, Kondli Gharoli, New Delhi came to be allotted in the name of late Shri. Suraj Pal Verma, husband of the petitioner. A demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block date 24.4.1990/3.5.1990 was issued by DDA requiring the allottee to deposit a sum of rs.25,997.37 on or before 2.6.1990. The aforesaid amount along with interest stipulated in the demand-cum-allotment letter could be deposited latest by 1.8.1990, whereafter the allotment was to get automatically cancelled. The amount demanded by DDA was deposited by Shri Shiv Kumar, son of the petitioner on 14.7.1990. Since the allotment stood in the name of her husband and not in her name, the petitioner applied to DDA on 18.7.1990 for mutation in her name and furnished documents such as death certificate and third copy of the challan of deposit of Rs.26,452.32. She also furnished the requisite documents for mutation vide letter dated 25.10.1990. The case of DDA in the counter affidavit is that the complete documents came to be submitted by the petitioner only by 25.4.1994, though the counter affidavit does not disclose what were the deficient documents which were submitted on 25.4.1994. The registration came to be transferred in the name of the petitioner and her minor son Pradeep vide allotment letter dated 13.12.1994. Vide subsequent letter dated 23.1.1995 and 15.7.1996, DDA asked the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.200/- towards fees for late intimation of death of her husband. The said amount was deposited by her on 16.7.1996. Vide letter dated 6.12.1996, the DDA asked the petitioner to appear in its office along with requisite documents and challan. Thereupon, it was decided to allot another LIG Flat to her at the cost prevailing at that time and DDA also allowed 10% interest on the amount which she had deposited. Pursuant to the said decision, an LIG Flat No.33, Sector-1, Pocket-12, Ground Floor, Rohini came to be allotted to the petitioner in a draw of lot held on 17.2.1998 and a demand-cum- allotment letter dated 7.9.1998/11.9.1998 was sent to the her, requiring her to deposit the revised cost of the flat within the time stipulated in the said letter. The petitioner appeared before the Vice-Chairman of DDA on 9.8.2000 and represented for allotment at the old cost. The petitioner thereafter made various payments as detailed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit filed by DDA. Vide letter dated 2.8.2000, she was required by DDA to deposit the balance amount of Rs.24,493.94 along with interest amounting to Rs.13,678.50. The petitioner again represented to the Vice-Chairman of DDA to waive the penalty for late payment of the confirmation amount as well as the initial amount and the monthly instalments. Her request was acceded to and a revised demand letter was issued to her requiring her to deposit the balance amount of Rs.14666/- The amount of monthly instalments was also revised to Rs.2,896.03 per month with effect from 10.8.2001. There was also an increase in the ground rent. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the balance amount as per revised demand letter, a show cause notice was issued to her, but there was no response to the said notice. The allotment was, therefore, cancelled and a cancellation letter was sent to the petitioner on 20.9.2004. The flat which had been allotted to her was allotted to the next waiting list registrant. The petitioner against represented to Vice-Chairman of DDA for possession of the flat which had been allotted to her in Rohini. Taking a sympathetic view, the allotment was restored and another flat bearing number 90, Sector-20, Pocket-14, Ground Floor, Rohini was allotted to the petitioner in a draw of lot held on 21.9.2007 and a demand-cum-allotment letter was accordingly issued to her requiring her to deposit the cost of the flat as per the schedule mentioned therein. Being aggrieved from the act of DDA in demanding the revised cost of the flat, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition. The revised cost of flat indicated in the demand- cum-allotment letter dated 29.8.2008/4.9.2008 was Rs.11,49,576/-.

(2.) THE counter affidavit filed by DDA gives no indication as to what happened to the allotment made to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 24.4.1990/3.5.1990. However, since the case of DDA is that later another flat bearing number 33, Sector-1, Pocket-12, Ground Floor, Rohini came to the allotted to the petitioner in a draw of lot held on 17.2.1998, the inference which could be drawn is that the allotment made vide letter dated 24.4.1990/3.5.1990 was treated as cancelled. Since there is no dispute that the amount demanded by DDA vide allotment letter dated 24.4.1990/3.5.1990 was deposited well within the time stipulated in the said letter, there was no ground for DDA to treat the said allotment as cancelled. The learned counsel appearing for DDA submits that the requisite documents were completed by the petitioner only by 25.4.1994 though the documents also ought to have been deposited within the time stipulated in the demand-cum-allotment letter. In my view, there is no merit in the contention. If an allottee delays in submission of documents, no loss is caused to DDA on account of such delay. It is the allottee alone who suffers since handing over possession of the flat is delayed on account of non-submission of the requisite documents.

(3.) SINCE the act of DDA in treating the allotment made vide allotment letter 24.4.1990/3.5.1990 was wholly illegal and uncalled for, it had no justification in law to charge higher price from the petitioner while allotting another flat to her unless there was a difference in the cost of the flat in Kondli Gharoli and the cost of the flat in Rohini, but, DDA cannot charge the cost of the flat prevalent on the date on which the subsequent allotment came to be made to the petitioner.