DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. MADHU JINDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Sapra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge has erred by not dismissing the writ petition as the power to condone delay vests only with the Lt. Governor of Delhi and in any case the respondents never applied for extension of time. Therefore, on these counts the order of the learned Single Judge is termed as bad in law. Mr.Sapra has further contended that grant of the interest of 9% was also contrary to the terms and conditions of the DDA.

(2.) We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. The respondent cannot be faulted if in a scheme of 1981 the priority for allotment came in the year 2003 and that too when initially the respondent had applied for a 90 sq. mtrs. plot which was changed to 60 sq. mtrs. in 1999 by the Government of India on account of the paucity of land in Delhi. The learned Single Judge has dealt in great detail that there was no delay on the part of the respondent and therefore, has awarded 9% interest to be paid by the respondent. LPA No.329/2006 Page 2 of 4

(3.) On the last date of hearing, we had directed that respondent be allowed to pay a reasonable rate of interest as the interest rate must keep pace with the time. When DDA fixed 18% interest rate, the interest rate was quite high but today the interest rates are not that high. On the last date of hearing, Mr.Sapra took time to take instructions. Mr.Sapra on instructions states that the DDA is not willing to accept interest less than 18%. The stand of DDA is not only unreasonable but is also totally contrary to the interest rate prevalent in the market and for no fault of the respondent, she cannot be burdened with heavy interest rate.