DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. SUBHASH CHAND DHIGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this batch of Intra Court Appeal is to the order dated 8th December, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of Writ Petitions (WPs) filed by the respondents herein challenging the action of the DDA (appellant herein) in not issuing fresh demand-cum-allotment letters.

(2.) The facts as noted from the record are, in the year 1996 respondents herein had applied for allotment of flats in a Scheme. On 31st March, 1997, draw of lots were held and the respondents were allotted flats. In the year 1998, demand-cum-allotment letters were issued to the respondents, however, some of the respondents challenged the demand raised in the said letters. The learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Raj Kumar v. DDA, W.P.(C) 2142/1999, decided on 27th November, 2003, repelled the challenge to the upward revision in the disposal cost, but directed the respondents to choose an option between payment of consideration for the allotted flat at the current cost (then prevailing) within 45 days from the date of judgment or to make payment of the original cost with interest @ 12% per annum on the 50% of the amount from the date of allotment and balance 50% of the amount from the date when the amenities became available. It was noted by the learned Single Judge that from the appellant s file noting dated 24th March, 2005, it is clear that a decision was taken not only to waive off the limitation of 45 days for exercise of option for payment at current cost but also decided to consider the cases of even those allottees who had exercised the option for the payment of the current cost beyond 45 days. As the current cost was working out to be less than the old cost plus interest, a decision was required to be taken as to whether all allotees irrespective of the factum of having exercised option for payment at current cost would be charged current rates. However, no decision was taken by the DDA on the ground that similar matter was pending consideration before the higher authorities.

(3.) The case of the respondents before the learned Single Jude was that they have come to know that allotment letters had been issued to similarly placed allottees as late as 2014 and 2015 and they filed representations calling upon the appellant / DDA to issue demand letters. A plea of delay and laches was taken by the appellant / DDA as according to DDA, cause of action for filing the writ petitions had arisen in the year 2003. The respondents had approached DDA only in 2015 for allotment of flats. That apart, they sought parity qua the cases of K.K. Swajana Mitran and Smt. Leela. The said plea of parity was contested by the appellant DDA by stating that the said two persons were not fence-sitters, unlike the respondents herein inasmuch as they had been taking active steps through various communications to pursue their allotment and as such the benefits were given to the said two persons and no parity can be sought by the respondents herein.