VEENA GANDHI Vs. DDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking directions for quashing the decision of the respondent in allotting LIG Flat No. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner at almost double the price of earlier flat being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and policy of equity, justice and good conscience and also to issue writ commanding the respondent to forthwith issue to the petitioner a fresh demand letter in respect of LIG Flat no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi at the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to her in 1991 after adjusting the amount already paid by her after adding interest thereupon @ 12% pa for 10 years. The facts and circumstances of the case, which are relevant for deciding the present petition, are as follows:

(2.) IN the year 1979, the DDA, respondent herein, under the Delhi Development (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) regulations, 1968 announced a scheme for allotment of DDA flats to the citizens of the country, namely, the new Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner applied for and was registered under the aforesaid scheme for the allotment of an LIG flat. The petitioner waited for the allotment and after a long wait of 12 years, in the draw held on 15. 02. 1991, the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing no. 4, First floor, Pocket-6, Block-A, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi at a total disposal cost of rs. 1,64,200/- on hire purchase basis and an allotment cum demand letter dated 08. 08. 1991 was issued to the petitioner in this regard. As the allotment was on hire purchase basis, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 56,722/- as the initial deposit on or before 07. 09. 1991 and the balance amount was to be paid in the form of monthly installments of Rs. 1424. 12/ -.

(3.) MR. R. K. Saini counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made payment of initial deposit on 07. 09. 1991 and made payments of some installments also. The counsel submitted that the possession letter of the said flat was issued to the petitioner on 27. 05. 1994 and thereafter, the petitioner contacted the Junior Engineer at the site to take the possession of the said flat and it was then to her utter shock and surprise, she came to know that the said flat already stood allotted to another person who had already taken the possession of the said flat, thus, the matter became a case of double allotment of the same flat. The counsel urged that the said position was immediately brought to the notice of the concerned officials and the petitioner requested them to allot her another flat at the same cost at the earliest. The counsel contended that the petitioner also met the higher officials of the respondent dda, who also realized the mistake of DDA in allotting the aforesaid flat to the petitioner, which was a double allotment. The counsel further contended that the petitioner also appeared in a number of public hearings from 1994 to May 2001 and also made various representations to the DDA. The counsel also submitted that ultimately after the representation dated 31. 05. 2001, the DDA issued allotment-cum-demand letter dated 01. 06. 2001 in respect of an alternative flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, to the petitioner, in which disposal cost of the flat was shown to be Rs. 1,91,100/- (1,55,900/- + 35,200/-) and an amount of Rs. 1,36,557/- was demanded towards installments already due w. e. f. September 1992 till April 2001 and a further sum of Rs. 67,306/- was demanded towards interest due upon the aforesaid installments and over that a sum of Rs. 85,348/- was demanded as amount due on 65 installments @ Rs. 1313. 05/- pm and as such an amount of Rs. 2,89,211/- (136557 + 67306+ 85348) was determined as amount payable by the petitioner. The counsel urged that the allotment dated 01. 06. 2001 was made to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier allotment, which was a double allotment, therefore, the allotment dated 01. 06. 2001 ought to have been made at the same cost of Rs. 1,64,200/- at which the earlier allotment dated 08. 08. 1991 was made. The counsel contended that the subsequent allotment was in clear violation of the policy of the DDA according to which in a case of double allotment, any subsequent allotment made thereafter will be made without charging any interest from the allottee. The counsel further submitted that thereafter, the DDA issued a possession letter dated 19. 07. 2001 in respect of the flat bearing no. 86, First floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi and the actual possession was handed over to the petitioner on 27. 08. 2001 by the DDA without insisting upon payment of installments at the aforesaid rate. The petitioner, however, in the meanwhile, had approached the Lok Adalat of the DDA and prayed that she be given interest on the amount deposited by her with the DDA for 10 years and that for the alternative flat the same price be charged as that of the original allotment. But the Lok Adalat could not give any relief to the petitioner. The counsel also asserted that through some public representative, grievance was also made to the Chief Minister of Delhi, but still the petitioner could not get any relief. The counsel submitted that finally, the petitioner through her husband made a representation on 02. 06. 2004 to the Commissioner (Housing)requesting for re-calculation, in a just and proper manner, of the alternative flat allotted to her and also that she be given interest on the amount deposited by her with the DDA for 10 years. The counsel maintained that after making the aforesaid representation, the petitioner waited for the reply of the respondent dda and the desired remedial action in the matter but nothing was done by the dda, rather on the contrary the DDA started threatening to cancel the allotment and take back possession of the flat. The counsel submitted that the petitioner then left with no option but to move this court apprehending that true to its style of inefficient working and callous attitude the DDA instead of taking any remedial action in the matter may not cancel the allotment and take back possession of the flat forcibly from the petitioner. The counsel contended that the act of the DDA is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, the Rules, Regulations and policy of equity, justice and good conscience.