Vijender Jain ( 1 ) THE petitioner got registered for the allotment of L. I. G. ,flat under a scheme of Delhi Development Authority (in short dda ) to allot flats to the residents of Delhi. After waiting for eleven years, the petitioner was allotted L. I. G. category flat on the ground floor in Kondii Gharoli on hire purchase basis at a total price of Rs. 1,29,400. 00 Mr. R K Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that as per the demand letter, the petitioner deposited a sum of s. 27,857. 92 paise on 26. 5. 1990 within stipulated period. In the said demand letter, which is at page-14 of the paper book, it was mentioned that the monthly instalment in relation to the flat, which has been allotted to the petitioner shall be Rs. 1337. 12 paise. The petitioner deposited the instalments for the months of July and August also on 9. 8. 1990 as per the copy of the Challan, which is at page-16 of the paper book. When the petitioner did not get the possession of the flat in question, he visited to the office of the respondent-DDA and after many such visits only in the month of November 1990, he was informed that his allotment w as cancelled on account of not depositing certain documents within 90 days from the issue of the letter. On 16. 11. 1990 the petitioner submitted the required documents with the respondent. The petitioner thereafter was informed vide letter of the respondent-DDA dated 8. 3. 1991 that he will be eligible for allotment of a flat in the next draw of lot to be conducted by the respondent and cancellation charges had to be deposited by the petitioner, which the petitioner deposited on 12. 4. 1991. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent-DDA on 12. 4. 1991 stating Inter alia that the petitioner had deposited the amount as demanded by the DDA in time and, therefore, cancellation of the allotment in his favour was illegal and arbitrary and also stated reasons in the representation so made by him to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent- DDA for non-depositing the documents in time. 4. 1991 stating Inter alia that the petitioner had deposited the amount as demanded by the DDA in time and, therefore, cancellation of the allotment in his favour was illegal and arbitrary and also stated reasons in the representation so made by him to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent- DDA for non-depositing the documents in time. It has been averred in Para-14 of the petition that the Vice-chairman of the respondent took a sympathetic view on the representation of the petition and ordered that if the flat was still available the allotment of the same be made to the petitioner and possession thereof should also be given to him and if the flat has already been allotted to someone else then another flat in the same locality be allotted to the petitioner within 15 days. Thereafter the petitioner w as allotted a flat bearing No. 3-B, Pocket A-l, GRP 8 and 9, Kondii Gharoli, on 11. 2. 1992 but the respondent demanded amount of Rs. 2,15,600. 00 Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. ( 3 ) MR. SAINI, learned counsel appearing for te petitioner, has contended that the amount raising from Rs. 1,29,400. 00 to Rs. 2,15,600. 00 in the facts and circumstances of the case is illegal and arbitrary. Mr. Saini has further contended that the cancellation of the flat by the respondent Authority after allotment without giving an opportunity of being heard, is totally arbitrary and illegal, more so, when the petitioner had deposited the full amount as demanded by the respondent and w as also paying regular instalments. Mr. Saini has also contended that the respondent adopted double standards in treating the petitioner as in other cases w -here even the amount demanded by the respondent has not been deposited, the respondent Authority had issued show cause notices to them whereas in the case of the petitioner, even after the amount has been deposited and monthly instalments for two months have also been paid, without giving any notice the respondent has cancelled the allotment of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has contended that even the cancellation order was not communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Saini in support of his contentions has cited the case of Kanta Raju VS. DDA C. W. P. No. 587/1990 decided on 18. 12. Learned counsel has contended that even the cancellation order was not communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Saini in support of his contentions has cited the case of Kanta Raju VS. DDA C. W. P. No. 587/1990 decided on 18. 12. 1990, in which it is held that- ". . . . . . . . WHEN a flat is allocated by a State Authority to a private citizen then that private citizen, like the petitioner, gets an interest therein. If the State authority wants to cancel such allotment or allocation, then the principles of natural justice will come into play. It will be contrary to the principles of natural justice if an allotment made is sought to be cancelled without any show cause notice. " ( 4 ) HE has also cited a Single Bench decision of this Court Mrs. Krishna Sehgal VS. DDA C. W. P. No. 3267/1990 decided on 5. 2. 1993 and on the basis of these authorities Mr. Saini has rightly contended that the documents are mainly required for issuance of possession letter and the stage of issuance of possessin letter comes much later after the deposit of the amount. It was held in Mrs. Krishan Sehgal s case (supra) that |- ". . . . . . . . and in the cases where delay has occurred in submissions of documents on account of bona fide reasons and particularly where full payments have been made, such cases, required sympathetic consideration and at least consideration instead of mechanical application of automatic cancellation clause. . . . . . . " ( 5 ) NOBODY has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent. However, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and respondent has not denied in its counter affidavit. which is at page- 32 of the paper book, that the representation was made to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent- DDA and the petitioner w as allotted flat No. 3-B. Pocket A-1, GRP 8 and 9, Kondli Gharoli, in a mini draw held in February 1992. Although, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, yet two judgments have also been filed on record by the respondent, i. e. Madan Kumar Jain VS. DDA C. W. P. No. 3828/1991 decided on 20. 10. 1995 and Shri O P Garg VS. DDA C. W. P. No. l837/1993 decided on 18. 8. 1993. Although, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent, yet two judgments have also been filed on record by the respondent, i. e. Madan Kumar Jain VS. DDA C. W. P. No. 3828/1991 decided on 20. 10. 1995 and Shri O P Garg VS. DDA C. W. P. No. l837/1993 decided on 18. 8. 1993. The former is a case where the petitioner has defaulted in making the payments on due dates whereas the latter one is a case of self-financing scheme. Therefore, both the Judgements are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. ( 6 ) I have gone through the paper book. As w as held in Mrs. Krishna Sehgal s case (supra), in view of the deposits made by the petitioner, in view of the intimation of cancellation of the flat having not been sent by the respondent-DDA, and following the ratio of Kanta Raju s case (supra) that once the allotment is made in favour of a citizen, a vested right is created in favour of the citizen and if any cancellation has to be made by the Authority, principles of natural justice will come into play. In the present case, admittedly, petitioner has deposited the money in stipulated time. He also paid monthly instalments. The cancellation of allotment was, therefore, bad. In view of the fact that cancellation was bad and improper, the subsequent order of respondent demanding a sum of Rs. 2,15,600. 00 cannot be sustained. I, therefore, quash the order of the respondent Authroity demanding a sum of Rs. 2,15,600. 00 Petition is allowed and rule is made absolute. As I have held that the action of cancellation of the flat initially on the part of the respondent being illegal and improper, respondent is directed to deliver the possession of the flat bearing No. 3-B, Pocket A- 1, GRP 8 and 9, Kondii Gharoli, to the petitioner w ithin three months from today. Respondent is further directed to charge from the petitioner at the original demand letter, which is at page-14 of the paper. book. Respondent is further directed to charge from the petitioner at the original demand letter, which is at page-14 of the paper. book. If any formalities are required to be completed by the petitioner, an intimation about it should be given to him within four week and w ithin two weeks of the receipt of such intimation, the petitioner should comply with the required formalities ( 7 ) THE, writ petition is accordingly disposed of and the parties are left to bear their own costs.