KRISHNA SAPRA Vs. D.D.A.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondent/DDA to issue a demand -cum -allotment letter in respect of Flat No. 314, Mayur Vihar, Pocket -5, Delhi, at the cost prevalent in the year 1991, on the date of draw of an alternative flat.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that her husband, Shri S.C. Sapra was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS, 1979). In the year 1989, the respondent floated Avas Sarkar Yojna (ASY) Scheme to reduce the backlog of registrants under the NPRS, 1979. The petitioner's husband, who had not been allotted a flat till 1989, applied for conversion of his registration to the ASY, 1989 scheme. In the meanwhile, in the year 1991, Shri S.C. Sapra was allotted a flat bearing No. 51A, Pocket A -3, Group III, Kondli Gharoli, Ground Floor, Delhi but a demand -cum -allotment letter was not issued to him on the ground that his registration had been transferred to ASY. On 07.10.1992, the respondent/DDA resolved to close the ASY, 1989 Scheme and not to entertain any more cases, other than of the nine Co -operative Societies duly registered under the said scheme. It is relevant to note that the name of the husband of the petitioner was not included in the list of the nine Co -operative Societies. As a result, on account of closure of the ASY, 1989 scheme, the registration of the husband of the petitioner continued to remain under the NPRS, 1979 scheme. However, till the year 1998, the respondent/DDA did not issue a demand -cum -allotment letter in respect of the flat, allotted to Shri S.C. Sapra. On 12.12.1998, the husband of the petitioner expired, whereafter, the registration of the petitioner's husband was mutated in favour of the petitioner, vide letter dated 09.09.2003 issued by the DDA.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner states that the present case is covered by the order dated 09.07.2008 passed in WP(C) 636/2007 entitled 'Kiran Arora v. DDA'. She submits that the petitioner is entitled to allotment at the rates prevalent at the time, when the allotment matured in favour of her husband, i.e., on 12.10.1990 when the computerized draw of lots was held by the DDA. She states that while the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the current cost of the additional area allotted to her, the old disposal cost is liable to be charged on the basis of the date of maturity of the priority of her husband.