Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on : May 10, 2007
Date of Decision : May 29, 2007
+ W.P. (C) 19789/2005 & CM No. 12786/2005
# DR. NARESH PAL SINGH ..... PETITIONER
! Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
$ DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest? Yes
: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The short issue in this writ petition concerns the cost at which a
demand letter in respect of flat No. A-189, (Second and Third Floor)
Category III, Pocket A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, should be allotted to
the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner was allotted the said flat in a draw held on
7.3.2000. The Petitioner's case is that the cost prevalent on the date
of the draw, i.e., March 2000, should be charged. The stand of the
Respondent, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is that the Petitioner
was originally allotted a flat in Jasola, Pocket 8, and thereafter at
Shekh Sarai, Pocket F. However, at the request of the Petitioner the
locality was changed to Sarita Vihar. When the matter was referred
to the competent authority, i.e., the Lt. Governor/Chairman, DDA, the
request for change of locality was not approved. The delay in making
1 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
payment was also not approved. Therefore, the Petitioner's prayer
cannot be granted.
3. The facts that are required to be recounted are that in the year
1985 the Respondent DDA floated the Self Financing Housing Scheme
VI. On 22.7.1985 the Petitioner registered under the said Scheme.
Later the Petitioner opted for conversion of his registration from
Category II to Category III and sent the DDA a letter on 29.6.1989
enclosing the relevant documents. He also paid the appropriate
charges. The request was accepted by the DDA. A letter of allocation
bearing block dates, 26.12.1991 to 31.12.1991 allocating a flat at
Jasola, Pocket 8 was sent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was unable
to accept this allocation and wrote to the DDA on 8.2.1992 requesting
for cancellation. He paid Rs. 1,500 as cancellation/surrender charges.
This request was accepted on 26.3.1992.
4. In the year 1993 the Petitioner was allocated a flat at Shekh
Sarai Pocket F. However, the letter was returned to DDA as
`undelivered'. On 3.9.1997, the Petitioner received a letter from the
DDA asking him to submit proof of identification. The Petitioner by
his letter dated 24.10.1997, while furnishing the documents asked to
be submitted, again requested for the issuance of a demand letter.
He pointed out that he had only recently learnt that a demand letter
had been issued in respect of the Shekh Sarai flat in 1993 itself.
5. The Petitioner kept following up the matter and again renewed
his request on 17.7.1998. He states that consequent to his attending
a public hearing, he was advised by a DDA official to deposit part
payment towards the flat. The Petitioner thereafter deposited Rs.
2 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
4,50,000 along with his letter dated 12.10.1998.
6. Meanwhile, the case of the Petitioner was placed before the
Restoration Committee which approved it by its Minutes dated
14.5.1999. Yet no letter of allotment was issued to him. On 22.12.1999
the Petitioner requested for change of locality from Shekh Sarai to
Sarita Vihar and stated that he was prepared to take the flat on any
floor. On this request, orders were passed by the Vice-Chairman on
23.12.1999 following which a letter dated 16.2.2000 was written by
the DDA to the Petitioner informing him that his request for change of
location had been acceded to. The Petitioner learnt that in a draw
held on 7.3.2000, the Sarita Vihar flat had been allotted.
7. When the Petitioner again followed up the matter for issuance of
a demand letter, he was informed that for files pertaining to the SFS
Category had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
for investigation, and therefore the issuance of the allotment letter to
the Petitioner was getting delayed. By a letter dated 27.12.2004 the
DDA called the Petitioner for a meeting for certain clarifications. This
the Petitioner provided. However, nothing happened thereafter. The
Petitioner again attended a public hearing on 3.3.2005. The
Petitioner was informed thereafter that his case was again placed
before the Restoration Committee. Since his case had already been
approved, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 4.10.2005.
8. While directing notice to issue on 5.10.2005 this Court directed
status quo to be maintained as regards the Sarita Vihar flat.
9. The counter affidavit filed by the DDA states that the Lt.
3 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
Governor had not approved the allotment to the Petitioner of the
Sarita Vihar flat with the following remarks:
“Shri N.P. Singh is an applicant of the Sixth Self
Financing Scheme which has since been closed.
The change in locality from Seikh Sarai to Sarita
Vihar was also done without the approval of the
competent authority. Moreover, no cogent reason
has been advocated by Shri N.P. Singh for the
delay. In view of the request for condonation of
delay cannot be accepted.”
10. In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, apart from pointing to
the notes on file, the Petitioner has referred to the Office Order dated
31.3.1999 of the DDA which lays down the period of delay in making
payments that can be condoned and the authority which is permitted
to condone such delay. According to the Petitioner as on the date of
the approval of his case by the Vice-Chairman, i.e., 7.3.2000 the
authority empowered to condone the delay of more than one year and
six months was the Vice-Chairman. The Petitioner also refers to two
similar cases where the delay has been condoned.
11. Appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Richa Kapoor submits that in
the instant case the requirement for restoration of cancelled
allotments after a period of three years was governed by the March
1999 Resolution. She refers to the subsequent Office Order dated
12.6.2001, according to which there was no need to send the matter
to the Lt. Governor if change of locality is within the same zone and to
another order dated 27.6.2001 according to which where the
allotment is made through general draw in any locality, the approval
of the LG is not required. She points to the fact that Shekh Sarai and
Sarita Vihar are under the same zone, and therefore, for the change
4 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
of locality there was no need to place the file before the Lt. Governor.
As regards the delay in making payment, the policy made it clear that
Vice-Chairman could approve the delay.
12. Mr. Ajay Verma, the learned counsel for the DDA states that the
requirement of approval by the Lt. Governor was as per the policy
prevalent in 2005. He tries to distinguish the present case from the
two other cases referred to by the Petitioner with reference to the
notes on file in respect of those cases. He submits that whatever was
the applicable policy at the relevant point of time would have to be
followed by the DDA.
13. The Petitioner has placed on record the notes on file obtained
through an application made under the Right to Information Act. An
important noting of 13.7.2004 acknowledges the fact that the demand
letter was held up for nearly three to four years due to non-
availability of documents. The note reads as under:
“This is with reference to observations of DD(SFS)
dated 22.6.04 (P.32/N). The report of Daftry as well
as DA (R) has been obtained but the RR/AA which
were reported to be in file No. F.175(269)/79/JL
and F.125(782)/90 are not available.
It is also mentioned that the category of flat was
got changed by Sh. N.P. Singh from II to III and
subsequently these papers were available in the
above mentioned file which are readily not
available and due to the non-availability of these
th
documents issuance of 5 and final D/L is held up
more than 304 years. Hence, if agree, we may seek
approval of Commr. (H) for condonation of loss of
RR/AA before file is referred to F/W for preparation
of final D/L.
Submitted please.
5 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
The above note may please be seen for final orders.
The detailed history is available from page 28 to
30/N.
Sd/-
13.7.04”
14. The notes on file also indicate that as per the audit objection,
change of locality was within the purview of the Vice-Chairman, DDA.
The reply to the audit objection reads as under:
“It has already been decided in so many cases
where the change of locality within the same
zone was done, VC DDA is competent in case
allotment was made through general
computerised draw.”
15. The narration of facts as well as the perusal of applicable
policies reveal that in terms of the policy of the Respondent dated
1.6.2001, it was the Vice-Chairman who was the competent authority
and there was absolutely no need to refer the above case to the Lt.
Governor. On the issues of condonation of the delay as well as
change of locality, the matter was rightly examined first by the
Restoration Committee thereafter by the Grievance Redressal
Committee. The Vice-Chairman had also granted his approval. The
notings on file indicate that the price at which the restoration was
sought to be made, was calculated as on 30.7.2004. In the written
submissions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, it has been claimed that
in terms of the policy dated 19.4.2002, the allotment has to be made
on the basis of the current cost on the date of the draw in which the
Sarita Vihar flat was allotted to the Petitioner. The admitted fact is
that the Sarita Vihar flat was allotted in a draw held on 7.3.2000. The
submission that the cost prevalent as on 4 months after the date of
the draw should be the cost at which the flat should be allotted,
6 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
appears to be reasonable.
16. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. A
direction is issued to the Respondent DDA to issue to the Petitioner
an allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of Flat No. A-189(Second
and Third Floor) Category III, Pocket A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi with
the cost calculated at the prevalent current cost as on 7.7.2000,
without charging any interest, within a period of 4 weeks from today,
and in any event not later than 30.6.2007. The demand letter will
account for the payments already made by the Petitioner. If the
Petitioner makes payment of the balance amount as indicated in the
demand letter within the time stipulated, and subject to completion of
any other formalities, the Petitioner will be put in possession of the
flat within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
17. Considering the long period for which the Petitioner had to wait
for issuance of the allotment letter, the DDA is directed to pay costs
of Rs. 5,000 to the Petitioner within a period four weeks from today,
and in any event not later than 30.6.2007.
18. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed and the
application is disposed of.
May 29, 2007 (S. Muralidhar)
ak Judge
7 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
% Reserved on : May 10, 2007
Date of Decision : May 29, 2007
+ W.P. (C) 19789/2005 & CM No. 12786/2005
# DR. NARESH PAL SINGH ..... PETITIONER
! Through : Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
$ DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... RESPONDENT
^ Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
Digest? Yes
: Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
1. The short issue in this writ petition concerns the cost at which a
demand letter in respect of flat No. A-189, (Second and Third Floor)
Category III, Pocket A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, should be allotted to
the Petitioner.
2. The Petitioner was allotted the said flat in a draw held on
7.3.2000. The Petitioner's case is that the cost prevalent on the date
of the draw, i.e., March 2000, should be charged. The stand of the
Respondent, Delhi Development Authority (DDA) is that the Petitioner
was originally allotted a flat in Jasola, Pocket 8, and thereafter at
Shekh Sarai, Pocket F. However, at the request of the Petitioner the
locality was changed to Sarita Vihar. When the matter was referred
to the competent authority, i.e., the Lt. Governor/Chairman, DDA, the
request for change of locality was not approved. The delay in making
1 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
payment was also not approved. Therefore, the Petitioner's prayer
cannot be granted.
3. The facts that are required to be recounted are that in the year
1985 the Respondent DDA floated the Self Financing Housing Scheme
VI. On 22.7.1985 the Petitioner registered under the said Scheme.
Later the Petitioner opted for conversion of his registration from
Category II to Category III and sent the DDA a letter on 29.6.1989
enclosing the relevant documents. He also paid the appropriate
charges. The request was accepted by the DDA. A letter of allocation
bearing block dates, 26.12.1991 to 31.12.1991 allocating a flat at
Jasola, Pocket 8 was sent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner was unable
to accept this allocation and wrote to the DDA on 8.2.1992 requesting
for cancellation. He paid Rs. 1,500 as cancellation/surrender charges.
This request was accepted on 26.3.1992.
4. In the year 1993 the Petitioner was allocated a flat at Shekh
Sarai Pocket F. However, the letter was returned to DDA as
`undelivered'. On 3.9.1997, the Petitioner received a letter from the
DDA asking him to submit proof of identification. The Petitioner by
his letter dated 24.10.1997, while furnishing the documents asked to
be submitted, again requested for the issuance of a demand letter.
He pointed out that he had only recently learnt that a demand letter
had been issued in respect of the Shekh Sarai flat in 1993 itself.
5. The Petitioner kept following up the matter and again renewed
his request on 17.7.1998. He states that consequent to his attending
a public hearing, he was advised by a DDA official to deposit part
payment towards the flat. The Petitioner thereafter deposited Rs.
2 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
4,50,000 along with his letter dated 12.10.1998.
6. Meanwhile, the case of the Petitioner was placed before the
Restoration Committee which approved it by its Minutes dated
14.5.1999. Yet no letter of allotment was issued to him. On 22.12.1999
the Petitioner requested for change of locality from Shekh Sarai to
Sarita Vihar and stated that he was prepared to take the flat on any
floor. On this request, orders were passed by the Vice-Chairman on
23.12.1999 following which a letter dated 16.2.2000 was written by
the DDA to the Petitioner informing him that his request for change of
location had been acceded to. The Petitioner learnt that in a draw
held on 7.3.2000, the Sarita Vihar flat had been allotted.
7. When the Petitioner again followed up the matter for issuance of
a demand letter, he was informed that for files pertaining to the SFS
Category had been seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
for investigation, and therefore the issuance of the allotment letter to
the Petitioner was getting delayed. By a letter dated 27.12.2004 the
DDA called the Petitioner for a meeting for certain clarifications. This
the Petitioner provided. However, nothing happened thereafter. The
Petitioner again attended a public hearing on 3.3.2005. The
Petitioner was informed thereafter that his case was again placed
before the Restoration Committee. Since his case had already been
approved, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition on 4.10.2005.
8. While directing notice to issue on 5.10.2005 this Court directed
status quo to be maintained as regards the Sarita Vihar flat.
9. The counter affidavit filed by the DDA states that the Lt.
3 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
Governor had not approved the allotment to the Petitioner of the
Sarita Vihar flat with the following remarks:
“Shri N.P. Singh is an applicant of the Sixth Self
Financing Scheme which has since been closed.
The change in locality from Seikh Sarai to Sarita
Vihar was also done without the approval of the
competent authority. Moreover, no cogent reason
has been advocated by Shri N.P. Singh for the
delay. In view of the request for condonation of
delay cannot be accepted.”
10. In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, apart from pointing to
the notes on file, the Petitioner has referred to the Office Order dated
31.3.1999 of the DDA which lays down the period of delay in making
payments that can be condoned and the authority which is permitted
to condone such delay. According to the Petitioner as on the date of
the approval of his case by the Vice-Chairman, i.e., 7.3.2000 the
authority empowered to condone the delay of more than one year and
six months was the Vice-Chairman. The Petitioner also refers to two
similar cases where the delay has been condoned.
11. Appearing for the Petitioner, Ms. Richa Kapoor submits that in
the instant case the requirement for restoration of cancelled
allotments after a period of three years was governed by the March
1999 Resolution. She refers to the subsequent Office Order dated
12.6.2001, according to which there was no need to send the matter
to the Lt. Governor if change of locality is within the same zone and to
another order dated 27.6.2001 according to which where the
allotment is made through general draw in any locality, the approval
of the LG is not required. She points to the fact that Shekh Sarai and
Sarita Vihar are under the same zone, and therefore, for the change
4 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
of locality there was no need to place the file before the Lt. Governor.
As regards the delay in making payment, the policy made it clear that
Vice-Chairman could approve the delay.
12. Mr. Ajay Verma, the learned counsel for the DDA states that the
requirement of approval by the Lt. Governor was as per the policy
prevalent in 2005. He tries to distinguish the present case from the
two other cases referred to by the Petitioner with reference to the
notes on file in respect of those cases. He submits that whatever was
the applicable policy at the relevant point of time would have to be
followed by the DDA.
13. The Petitioner has placed on record the notes on file obtained
through an application made under the Right to Information Act. An
important noting of 13.7.2004 acknowledges the fact that the demand
letter was held up for nearly three to four years due to non-
availability of documents. The note reads as under:
“This is with reference to observations of DD(SFS)
dated 22.6.04 (P.32/N). The report of Daftry as well
as DA (R) has been obtained but the RR/AA which
were reported to be in file No. F.175(269)/79/JL
and F.125(782)/90 are not available.
It is also mentioned that the category of flat was
got changed by Sh. N.P. Singh from II to III and
subsequently these papers were available in the
above mentioned file which are readily not
available and due to the non-availability of these
th
documents issuance of 5 and final D/L is held up
more than 304 years. Hence, if agree, we may seek
approval of Commr. (H) for condonation of loss of
RR/AA before file is referred to F/W for preparation
of final D/L.
Submitted please.
5 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
The above note may please be seen for final orders.
The detailed history is available from page 28 to
30/N.
Sd/-
13.7.04”
14. The notes on file also indicate that as per the audit objection,
change of locality was within the purview of the Vice-Chairman, DDA.
The reply to the audit objection reads as under:
“It has already been decided in so many cases
where the change of locality within the same
zone was done, VC DDA is competent in case
allotment was made through general
computerised draw.”
15. The narration of facts as well as the perusal of applicable
policies reveal that in terms of the policy of the Respondent dated
1.6.2001, it was the Vice-Chairman who was the competent authority
and there was absolutely no need to refer the above case to the Lt.
Governor. On the issues of condonation of the delay as well as
change of locality, the matter was rightly examined first by the
Restoration Committee thereafter by the Grievance Redressal
Committee. The Vice-Chairman had also granted his approval. The
notings on file indicate that the price at which the restoration was
sought to be made, was calculated as on 30.7.2004. In the written
submissions filed on behalf of the Petitioner, it has been claimed that
in terms of the policy dated 19.4.2002, the allotment has to be made
on the basis of the current cost on the date of the draw in which the
Sarita Vihar flat was allotted to the Petitioner. The admitted fact is
that the Sarita Vihar flat was allotted in a draw held on 7.3.2000. The
submission that the cost prevalent as on 4 months after the date of
the draw should be the cost at which the flat should be allotted,
6 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of
appears to be reasonable.
16. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. A
direction is issued to the Respondent DDA to issue to the Petitioner
an allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of Flat No. A-189(Second
and Third Floor) Category III, Pocket A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi with
the cost calculated at the prevalent current cost as on 7.7.2000,
without charging any interest, within a period of 4 weeks from today,
and in any event not later than 30.6.2007. The demand letter will
account for the payments already made by the Petitioner. If the
Petitioner makes payment of the balance amount as indicated in the
demand letter within the time stipulated, and subject to completion of
any other formalities, the Petitioner will be put in possession of the
flat within a period of 8 weeks thereafter.
17. Considering the long period for which the Petitioner had to wait
for issuance of the allotment letter, the DDA is directed to pay costs
of Rs. 5,000 to the Petitioner within a period four weeks from today,
and in any event not later than 30.6.2007.
18. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed and the
application is disposed of.
May 29, 2007 (S. Muralidhar)
ak Judge
7 7
W.P. (C) 19789/2005 of