J P GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in the present writ petition, filed by him under Article 226 of the Consfitution of India, assails the demand-cum-allotment letter dated the 27th/31st May, 1991 (Annexure C-1), issued by the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the DDA'), in his favour allotting III category flat, situated to Sarita Vihar, Delhi to him.

(2.) The facts relevant for the disposal of the present writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner got himself registered for the allotment of a flat under the "Fifth Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982", floated by D. D. A. on 14-8-1982. Thereafter, in pursuance of a call in the daily news papers to apply for flats, which had been constructed by the respondent DDA, the petitioner on 4-3-1991 applied to the respondent D.D.A. for allotment of a flat in Sarita Vihar. The petitioner received letter dated 27/31-5-1991 (Annexure C-1) from the DDA intimating that a flat on the ground and First floor under the afbresaid Schente had been allotted to him. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the demand raised by the respondent D. D. A. vide detnand-curt-allotment letter (Annexure C-1) on account of the cost of the flat allotted to him is illegal and arbitrary, inter alia, on the ground that similar flats of the same category, located in the same area, have bean allotted by the respondent D. D. A. to other persons at a very low price as compared to the one, being charged from the petitioner. The petitioner has cited the example of one Shri Surendra Kumar Aggarwal by way of illustration to whom a similar flat has been allotted at a lesser cost. It is alleged that the above act of D.D.A. is discriminatory and is thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It has been prayed that the impugned demand-cum-allotment letter (Annexure C-1) be quashed and the respondent D.D.A. be directed to hand over the possession of the flat in question after charging the same cost as has been charged by it from the other allottees.

(3.) On behalf of D.D.A. it is contended that the cost of the flat in question has been finalised at Rs. 7,81,319-35 as per the demand letter (Annexure C-1), as per the policy of the D.D.A. It is also contended that the flat allotted to the petitioner is not similar to the flats allotted to the other allottees whose cost was Rs. 2,48,000/- because those flats were allotted during the year 1989 whereas the flat in question had been allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991. As regards charge of interest it is contended that the same is charged by the respondent D.D.A. on the capital investment made by it on behalf of the allottee/petitioner to bring the petitioner at par with the original allottees of the Scheme. In nutshell it has been urged by the respondent D.D.A. that the demand raised by it on account of the cost of the flat in question, that the petitioner vide impugned letter is perfectly legal, valid and reasonable and that the petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.