LAWS(DLH)-1997-7-100

SHAMBU DAYAL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On July 25, 1997
SHAMBU DAYAL Appellant
V/S
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner assails the allotment-cum-demand letter No. 39(14)/91/MP/ NP dated 24.9.1991, issued by the respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 3.29.000.00 as cost of the flat bearing No. 455-MIG, Mansarover Park, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the flat in question).

(2.) The respondent-DDA prepared and published a Scheme called "Registration Scheme of New Pattern,1979 of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority "providing the procedure for allotment of flats constructed by it. The petitioner got himself registered for the allotment of a flat under the said scheme and made an initial deposit of Rs. 4,500.00 . A draw was held on 18.2.1991 and vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 24.9.1991, the flat in question was allotted to the petitioner. The said allotment-cum-demand letter also indicated that the cost of the flat what was payable was Rs. 3,29,000.00 and the due date for the instalment of Rs. 3,336.75 paise was 10.11.1991. Petitioner's main grievance is that the demand raised by the respondent on account of cost of the flat in question is illegal and arbitrary inter alia on the ground that similar flats under the scheme, and located in the same area have been allotted by the respondent to other persons at a very low price as compared to the one, being charged from the petitioner. In short, the grievance of the petitioner is that he has been discriminated in the charge of price.

(3.) The respondent denied the petitioner's case and alleged that the disposal cost of the flat in question has been worked out strictly in accordance with the approved policy based on 'no profit/no loss' basis and the same is based on the rates prevailing on the date of issue of allotment-cum-demand letter. It is also contended that the flat allotted to the petitioner in 1991 is not similar to the flats allotted to other allottees in 1986 and 1988 and further the cost of the flat in question was increased on account of various factors and this Court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter of pricing/costing of flats including escalation of cost of land etc.