KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner got himself registered for allotment of an LIG Flat from DDA, under its New Pattern Registration Scheme-1979 (NPRS- 1979). On DDA launching another Scheme called "Awas Sakar Yozna- 1989", the petitioner applied for transfer of his registration from NPRS- 1979 to "Awas Sakar Yozna-1989". Since all the persons who had got their registration transferred from NPRS-1979 to "Awas Sakar Yozna- 1989" could not be allotted flat, the respondent-DDA decided to consider, for allotment of flats in the next draw, such registrants who had not been allotted flats under "Awas Sakar Yozna-1989", but whose priority numbers under "NPRS-1979", had matured, after taking an affidavit from them to the effect that they had not been considered for allotment of flats under "Awas Sakar Yozna-1989". It was also decided by DDA vide its Circular dated 28.5.2002 that the registrants of NPRS-1979 who had opted for "Awas Sakar Yozna-1989" but had not been identified as members of the Society, would continue to remain as the members of "NPRS-1979" at the priority numbers allocated to them and would be entitled to allotment at the rates prevailing at the time when they were entitled to allotment as per their priority.

(2.) THE petitioner came to be allotted an LIG Flat No.214 in Pocket-D, Lok Nayak Puram in a draw of lot held on 27.9.2007. The DDA sent various letters to him to attend the office along with the documents mentioned therein but the said letters were received back undelivered with the report that no such person was residing there. According to DDA, the documents were furnished by the petitioner vide letter dated 4.8.2008. He also appeared in the office of DDA during public hearing on 23.8.2010 and furnished requisite documents. Thereafter, the demand- cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner, requiring him to deposit cost of the flat as in the year 2012, though the said flat had already been allotted to the petitioner on 29.7.2007. Being aggrieved from the decision of DDA to charge cost of the flat as prevailing in the year 2012, the petitioner is before this Court with the following prayers:

(3.) IT would thus be seen that the turn of the petitioner for allotment of a residential flat from DDA matured on 23.3.2006. Therefore, DDA was required to include the name of the petitioner in the draw held on 23.3.2006. The reason given DDA for not including the name of the petitioner in a draw held on 23.3.2006 i.e. delay in receipt of information from another branch of DDA as to whether any flat under the said scheme had been allotted to the petitioner or not, does not constitute a valid reason for not including the name of the petitioner in the draw held on 23.3.2006, the same being an internal matter of DDA, it was obligatory for DDA to include the name of all the eligible registrants in the draw of lot held on 23.3.2006. The report, if any, was required to be obtained before holding the draw and the registrants cannot be made to pay higher price on account of the time taken by another branch of DDA in furnishing requisite information to the branch which was entrusted with the task of holding of the draw on 23.3.2006. Since DDA failed to include the name of the petitioner in the draw of lot held on 23.3.2006, for no fault on the part of the petitioner, it cannot be charge the price prevailing on the date of issue of the allotment letter from him.