AMAR NATH Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims a direction to the Respondent (hereafter the ?DDA?) to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter for the flat allotted to him on the basis of cost prevalent as on the date of draw i.e 9.6.2005.

(2.) The petitioner, a Registrant of the NPRS Scheme, in the MIG category, framed by DDA was allotted a flat in 1999. The demand-cum-allotment letter was dispatched to a wrong address. The petitioner, therefore, approached the DDA, in July, 2004 Eventually his request for alternative allotment was acceded to and his name was included in a draw of lots held on 29.6.2005. He was allotted a flat being No.741, Second Floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Dwarka. The allotment letter was issued on 31.10.2005; it indicated the cost of flat as Rs.11,20,880/- It is claimed that the cost sought to be recovered is arbitrary since in the vicinity, i. e. in respect of flat No.773, (for which draw was held on 28.1.2005), the cost demanded was Rs.8,43,920/-.

(3.) Mr. R.K. Saini, learned counsel submitted that the action of the DDA in issuing the demand-cum-allotment letter on 31.10.2005 is arbitrary and unreasonable. It was claimed that as per its existing policies, whenever the DDA is at fault, the allottee is entitled to benefit of restoration (of allotment) upon payment of old cost with interest, or the current cost whichever is lower. Learned counsel submitted that if the DDA had issued the demand-cum- allotment letter within a reasonable time, (which could not have been more than three months), the current cost would have been in the same range as was charged for Flat No.773. By not doing so and in delaying the matters, even though the draw of lots were held much earlier, the DDA acted unreasonably, to the petitioner's prejudice. This has resulted in discrimination because the petitioner has been asked to pay more than Rs.2.5 lakhs in excess of the cost recovered from an identically situated allottee.