V P SINGHAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's case in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that the Delhi Development Authority, respondent, launched "Registration Scheme on New Pattern 1979" (for short 'the Scheme') which was opened on September 1,1979 and closed on September 30,1979. The petitioner being eligible under the Scheme applied for registration by making a deposit of Rs. 4,500.00 and he was registered under the Scheme in MIG category. It is alleged that after 14 years of wait the petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated August 27,1993 was allotted flat No. 307, Pul Pehladpur, Delhi, on cash down basis at the cost of Rs. 6,01,500.00 by the respondent. However, as a result of decision, in Retired/Retiring Public Servants Forum v. DDA, dated February 3, 1995, the respondent held a fresh draw in which the name of the petitioner was also included and he was allotted the same flat No. 307, Pul Pehiadpur, at the same cost of Rs. 6,01,500.00 on hire-purchase basis. Revised allotment-cum-demand letter dated May 12/15, 1995 (Annexure P 2) was thereafter issued by the respondent to the petitioner asking him to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000.00 as confirmation deposit on or before June 14, 1995, first instalment of Rs. 2,58,644.00 by July 14, 1995 and 120 monthly instalments of Rs. 5,559.35p. each begining from July 10, 1995. Petitioner deposited the confirmation amount of Rs. 20,000/ on June 8, 1995 and first instalment of Rs. 2,58,644.96p. on July 14, 1995. Necessary documents for taking possession of the allotted flat were sent by the petitioner to the respondent alongwith covering letter dated August 2, 1995. It is further alleged that the petitioner visited the site to inspect the flat allotted to him and to his shock and suprise he came to know that the basic amenities such as water, electricity, sewerage were not available in the area and the provision for them was likely to take at least another 6 to 8 months. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation on August 9,1995 (Annexure P-5) to the respondent pointing out lack of civic amenities in the area and requiring it to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the payment already made till the basic amenities were made available for taking possession of the allotted flat. Payment of monthly instalment of Rs. 5,559.35p. was further sought to bedeferred till then. However, the respondent failed to take any action on the said representation. It is prayed that a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued directing the respondent to defer monthly instalments towards the cost of the flat starting from July 10,1995 and also to pay interest @ 18% per annum on the deposit of Rs. 2,89,744.34p. from July 14, 1995 till the date possession letter confirming the availability of the basic amenities is issued to the petitioner.

(2.) In response to the show-cause notice respondent filed reply on the affidavit of R.L. Srivastava, Director (H-ll). It is stated that pursuant to a decision of the Full Bench petitioner was allotted a flat in Pul Pehiadpur and allotment-cum-demand letter dated May 12,1995 was issued to him. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount demanded in the said letter, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. It is further stated that as per the report of the Assistant Engineer the area where the petitioner has been allotted flat stands electrified and water services are available there. Sewerage and drainage too are available and functioning properly at the site.

(3.) On April 8, 1996 in C.M. 2361/96 respondent was directed to deliver the possession of the allotted flat to the petitioner if he pays the instalments which have fallen due upto the date within a period of four weeks. This direction was made without prejudice to the liability of either party to make the payment of interest. Thereafter on July 19, 1996 Mr. N.K. Kaul appearing for the respondent made the statement that the possession of the flat has been delivered to the petitioner.