Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 679 (DEL)

KAMLESH v. VICE-CHAIRMAN, D. D. A

2007-03-28

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- This writ petition seeks a direction to the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) to issue a final demand letter in respect of 10% amount required to be paid in respect of a flat in Sector 12, Pocket 4, Dwarka consequent to a letter of allotment issued on 20.2.1997. 2. Although it is not denied by the DDA that the payment of three instalments b as indicated in the allotment letter was in fact made within the stipulated time, it is stated that there has been a non-compliance with the Clause 5 of the allotment letter which reads: "After payment of each instalment, third copy of the challan must be deposited at counter four, ground floor, D Block. Vikas Sadan, INA Colony, within 90 days of due instalment positively. If the third copy of the challan is not deposited as indicated above, it will be presumed that payment has not been made and further action will betaken accordingly." 3. It is contended by DDA in its counter affidavit that since this condition was mandatory and the third copy of the challan was not deposited, a presumption was drawn that the payment had not been made and hence the allotment "stood cancelled." The petitioner deposited the copies of the challan only on 26.12.2005 after which the payments were verified from the Housing Account Wing of DDA. 4. The facility of making payments with the authorized banks of DDA in their various branches in the city is no doubt for the convenience of the allottees. However, merely because a challan is not deposited at a particular counter-within the time as indicated in Clause 5, it cannot straightaway lead to cancellation of the allotment which is indeed an extreme measure. The DDA is expected to call for a bank reconciliation statement from time-to-time to find out what payments have been made in respect of various allotment letters issued by it. Significantly, in the payment challan which is deposited with the bank, the allottee is required to indicate the file number which will facilitate easy reconciliation of the DDAs accounts with that of the banks. In fact the DDA should be able to do this reconciliation if it has to accurately know if payments have been received in respect of a particular allotment. In fact the DDA should be able to do this reconciliation if it has to accurately know if payments have been received in respect of a particular allotment. In the circumstances, this Courts of the view that the allottee cannot be visited with the extreme consequence of cancellation of the allotment merely because a challan has not been deposited when in fact the payment has been made in terms of the allotment letter. S. The wording of Clause 5 also does not permit DDA to straightaway cancel the allotment. That Clause merely enables the DDA to draw a presumption that payment has not been made. That clause does not say that the allotment will be straightaway cancelled. Considering that even a statutory presumption would be rebuttable, a presumption that the DDA seeks to draw in terms of Clause 5 of the allotment letter can certainly be rebutted as well. The DDA is in the best position to rebut such presumption since it has all the information required from the banks and from its own Housing Accounts Wing. Therefore, before proceeding to cancel an allotment on the ground of non-deposit of a challan, the DDA will have to first find out if in fact payment has not been made by the allottee. Else, it would be impermissible for it to straightaway proceed to cancel the allotment. In the instant case, had DDA taken this precaution, it could not have cancelled the allotment. Therefore, it is held that the cancellation by the DDA of the allotment in favour of the petitioner is totally unjustified and unsustainable in law. 6. A directions is now issued to DDA to issue a final demand letter in terms of the allotment letter by DDA dated 22.2.1997 and for the same amount as indicated in that letter without any demand of interest, within a period of one month from today. The DDA would not be justified in charging interest in this case since the payment of the third instalment was made within time and the DDA was at fault in erroneously cancelling the allotment. If the payment of the final instalment is made to DDA within time stipulated by it, the petitioner will be allotted the same flat if available and if not another flat of the same size in the same locality within a period of two months thereafter. 7. If the payment of the final instalment is made to DDA within time stipulated by it, the petitioner will be allotted the same flat if available and if not another flat of the same size in the same locality within a period of two months thereafter. 7. With the above directions, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the DDA to the petitioner within four weeks from today. Writ Petition allowed.