ALOK BAJAJ Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 30. 4. 2003 passed by the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No. A-165/2003, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner herein.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the present revision petition are that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant by profession at the threshold of his career got himself registered in the Second Self Financing Scheme Flats, 1985 floated by the respondent-DDA and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000 with the DDA on 5. 9. 1985. The scheme contemplated to build commercial flats in various localities of Delhi and to hand over the possession of such flats within approximately three years from the date of registration by receiving payment of commercial flats in instalments. The scheme could not take off for several years and after a gap of about six years, vide communication dated 20. 12. 1991, DDA regretted about delay in allotment of a commercial flat to the petitioner and made an offer to the petitioner to apply for allotment of flats in certain localities like Janak Puri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar District Centre and also gave the option to the petitioner to take back the refund of the amount so deposited along with 7% interest. Petitioner accepted the offer and exercised the first option by indicating his preference for allotment of commercial flat. Petitioner heard nothing from the DDA uptil 31. 12. 1992 when the DDA issued another letter to the petitioner informing him that no specific project had been taken up under the scheme 1985 and thereafter offered the petitioner to opt for flats which were already under construction in Janakpuri District Centre and Laxmi Nagar District Centre which were expected to be ready for delivery of possession in about eight months' time, i. e. by August 1993. It was mentioned in the said letter that those flats under construction were independent of the scheme of 1985. The estimated tentative price of flat in Laxmi Nagar District Centre was upto Rs. 14,839 per sq. metre and the petitioner exercised his option for the same. However, again there was a silence on the part of the DDA, so the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking allotment of a commercial flat as envisaged in the 1985 scheme by the DDA. The complaint was resisted by the respondent-DDA. During the pendency of the complaint the DDA issued a Demand Letter dated 28. 3. 2000 by which a payment of Rs. 29,94,565 was demanded towards 113. 01 sq. metre of commercial flat in Laxmi Nagar District Centre after adjusting a sum of Rs. 20,000 already deposited by the petitioner and further sum of Rs. 20,240 towards interest. Revised demand letter was issued for receiving the said amount in instalments. It may be noticed here that the payment asked for by the DDA was totally in contravention of the earlier offer made it as the price fixed was almost one and a half times more than the price proposed earlier. The petitioner found the said price exorbitant and thereafter indicated to the District Forum that he was not interested in the allotment of commercial flat and would rather prefer to get his amount refunded which was deposited by him along with interest. So the DDA indicated that they had no objection to refund the amount along with interest after deducting the cancellation charges, etc. , which amount according to the DDA came to Rs. 19,119. District Forum accordingly disposed of the complaint on the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission but without success.

(3.) WE have heard Mr. R. K. Nayyar, learned Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. P. K. Aggarwal, Counsel for the respondent-DDA and have given our thoughtful consideration to their submissions.