Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 714 (DEL)

AMITA SETHI v. D. D. A.

2007-04-03

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER (Open Court) 1. A flat was allotted to the petitioners father who registered under the NRPS-1979, some time in 1990. This fact, however, was not known to the petitioners father since the letter of allotment was sent to the wrong address. Consequently, there was a default in making payment and the allotment stood cancelled. After her fathers death, the petitioner applied for mutation and received a letter dated 9.7.2003 from the DDA informing her that the mutation had been carried out only for the purposes of refund of the registration money. The petitioner then approached the DDA for restoration of the allotment. 2. By a letter dated 8.8.2003 the DDA informed the petitioner that her request for the allotment of an LIG flat had been acceded to by the Competent Authority "on cash down basis at the rate prevailing at the time of original allotment." The admitted position is that in the draw held on 24.11.2004, the petitioner was allotted flat No. 126-D, Pocket A-3, 1st floor, Kondli Gharoli, Delhi. The DDA sent letter dated 24.5.2005 to the petitioner asking her to attend a public hearing for certain clarifications on the issue "along with original ration card/identity card, etc. and all other original documents related to above subjected matter. ,. The petitioner claims that she submitted these documents thereafter but was not issued a demand-cum allotment letter. Thereafter she made a further representation on 20.6.2006 and then filed the present petition in this Court. 3. In the counter affidavit filed by the DDA it is stated inter alia that the petitioner had not submitted the required documents and that "as and when the petitioner shall submit identification proof and documents to clarify certain queries of the answering respondent the demand letter shall thereafter be issued with immediate effect as per the policy of the answering respondent." 4. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that she has already submitted the proof of identity and she is prepared to submit any other document that may be sought by the respondent. She also states on instructions that the petitioner is prepared to pay the cost prevalent as on four months after the date of draw dated 24. 11.2004 i.e. on 24.3.2005. 5. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the DDA confirms that the DDA stands by the statement made by it in its counter affidavit. She also states on instructions that the petitioner is prepared to pay the cost prevalent as on four months after the date of draw dated 24. 11.2004 i.e. on 24.3.2005. 5. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the DDA confirms that the DDA stands by the statement made by it in its counter affidavit. She confirms that DDA has received from the petitioner the proof of her identity. However, on the question of the cost of the flat, she states that the DDA would be prepared to issue the demand letter at the cost prevalent on the date of submission of the documents and not the cost prevalent as on four months after the date of draw. 6. The change in the stand of the DDA as regards the cost is not understandable. In fact, in their letter dated 8.8.2003 to the petitioner DDA had offered the flat at the rate prevailing at the time of original allotment. Even in the counter affidavit the DDA does not state that the cost of the flat would be that prevailing on the date of submission of documents. 7. In the circumstances, it seems to this Court just and equitable that the petitioner should be asked to pay the cost prevalent as on four months after the date of the draw held on 24.11.2004. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the DDA to issue to the petitioner a demand letter in respect of the flat allotted to her incorporating the cost of the flat as prevalent on four months after the date of draw held on 24.11.2004, i.e. as on 24.3.2005, within a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner upon making payment as demanded in the said letter will be put in possession of the flat, and other formalities and documentation should be completed within a period of 8 weeks thereafter. 8. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed and the application is disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master. Writ Petition allowed.