VIPIN SURI Vs. D D A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking directions to the respondent/DDA to issue a revised/fresh demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of Flat No. 925, Second Floor, Pocket-C, Block-B, Loknayak Puram, New Delhi at the cost in terms of its policy dated 06.06.2006 that was prevalent at the time of holding the remedial draw i.e. on 27.09.2007. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the demand-cum-allotment letter having block dates 30.03.2012-31.03.2012 in respect of the subject flat. The relevant facts of the case are that in the year 1979, the petitioner had got himself registered with the respondent/DDA for the allotment of a LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (NPRS 1979). In the year 1989 the respondent/DDA had launched another Scheme known as "Avas Sarkar Yojna" (ASY 1989). The petitioner had applied to the DDA for transfer of his registration from NPRS 1979 to ASY 1989.

(2.) On 07.10.1992, the respondent resolved to close the ASY Scheme and further decided that those applicants whose registrations were transferred from NPRS 1979 to ASY 1989, would be kept pending but their registrations would remain intact along with their priority number. As a result, the petitioner's registration continued under the NPRS, 1979 with priority no. 35176. Finally, the priority of the petitioner had matured in the year 2000 under the NPRS 1979 but due to oversight on the part of the respondent/DDA, his name was not included in the draw till as late as in the year 2007. On 27.09.2007, the subject flat was finally allotted to the petitioner in a remedial draw. Thereafter, for almost five years, the respondent/DDA did not issue a demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner and it was only in the year 2012 that a demand-cum-allotment letter having the block dates 30.03.2012-31.03.2012 was issued to the petitioner in respect of the subject flat that had been allotted to him on 27.09.2007.

(3.) The limited grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition is that while issuing the impugned demand-cum-allotment letter, the respondent/DDA has applied the demand charges as per its policy dated 13.10.2011, which was not even in existence on the date when the remedial draw had been held.