Forfeiture of booking amount is valid if the sum remains within the statutory twenty percent deposit cap.

The Appellant applied for a Middle Income Group (MIG) flat under the Respondent’s ‘First Come First Serve’ (FCFS) Housing Scheme, Phase-IV, by paying a booking amount of ₹4,00,000.

The Respondent issued an Allotment-cum-Demand Letter for a total disposal price of ₹1,28,74,387.

Due to a third-party CIBIL reporting error affecting her mother’s credit score, the Appellant’s home loan was withdrawn by the State Bank of India, preventing her from paying the balance within the stipulated 90-day period.

Although the Appellant sought an extension, the Respondent eventually re-auctioned the flat at a price ₹14.68 Lakhs higher than the original allotment and forfeited the Appellant's entire ₹4,00,000 booking amount.

The Appellant challenged the forfeiture via a Writ Petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 24.11.2025, leading to the present intra-court appeal.

1. Whether the forfeiture of the entire ₹4,00,000 booking amount was valid or if it was restricted by the cap prescribed under Regulation 8(3) of the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968.

2. Whether the "Booking Amount" under the FCFS Scheme constitutes a "Deposit" as defined under Regulation 8(1) of the 1968 Regulations.

3. Whether the Respondent’s action of keeping the extension request "under active consideration" for seven months constituted a waiver of the right to cancel the allotment without fresh notice.

Regulation 8 of the DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968, which mandates that every applicant deposit 20% of the disposal price [Reg. 8(1)] and limits forfeiture to 20% of that deposit if the applicant fails to pay the balance [Reg. 8(3)].

The precedent DDA v. Atul Gupta (1996), which established that Regulation 8(3) places an upper limit on the power to forfeit, prohibiting any amount exceeding 20% of the disposal price.

The terms of the DDA FCFS Scheme Phase-IV Brochure/Circular dated 29.06.2023, which stipulated that the booking amount is non-refundable and subject to 100% forfeiture upon cancellation.

The Court observed that the FCFS Scheme's procedural framework required a specific booking amount (₹4,00,000) to reserve a flat for 15 minutes, which is distinct from the statutory 20% deposit mentioned in Regulation 8(1).

The Court reasoned that if the statutory Regulation 8(1) were applied, the "Deposit" for a flat priced at ₹1.28 Crore should have been approximately ₹25.74 Lakhs (20% of disposal price). Under Regulation 8(3), the permissible forfeiture would then be 20% of that deposit, amounting to approximately ₹5.14 Lakhs.

Since the Respondent only forfeited ₹4,00,000—which is lower than the calculated statutory limit of ₹5.14 Lakhs—the Court found no violation of the 20% cap principle established in Atul Gupta.

The Court held that the Appellant, having accepted the benefits and specific terms of the Scheme Brochure without prior objection, was estopped from challenging the forfeiture clause after defaulting on payment.

The claims of "unjust enrichment" and "waiver by conduct" were rejected because the Scheme clearly stated that allotment would automatically stand cancelled after the 90-day grace period.

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, concluding that the Appellant was bound by the clear and unambiguous terms of the Scheme Brochure. No costs were awarded.