Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 236 (DEL)

Om Prakash v. Delhi Development Authority

2011-02-15

S.MURALIDHAR

body2011
ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. These two petitions involve more or less similar questions and they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6394 of 2010 is by Mr. Om Prakash who is registered for an LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS 1979') on 26th September, 1979. In a draw held on 15th February, 1991, he was allotted Flat No. 25, Pocket-6, Sector-16, Block-A in Rohini. He was issued a demand-cum- allotment letter ('DAL') with block dates 5th/8th August, 1991. However, he surrendered his allotment on 1st November, 1991 and deposited a sum of Rs. 300/- towards cancellation charges. By its letter dated 1st May, 1992 the DDA informed him that he had to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,234/- on account of cancellation charges, and that by the said amount his name would be included at the tail-end priority list of the allotment of a flat in future. However, the Petitioner failed to deposit the aforementioned cancellation charges and his name could not be included in the first draw held on 27th September, 2007 for tail-end priority cases in LIG category. 3. The facts in W.P. (Civil) No. 6395 of 2010 are more or less similar. A flat was allotted to the Petitioner, Mrs. Veena Kumari, in Rohini pursuant to a draw held on 29th January, 1993. It was surrendered by her on 24th May, 1993 by paying a sum of Rs. 300/-. On 5th November, 1993 she was asked to deposit Rs. 1,618/- as cancellation charges for inclusion in the tail-end priority list. She failed to do so. 4. The Petitioner Mr. Om Prakash had earlier filed W.P. (C) No. 8912 of 2008 and Mrs. Veena Kumari had filed W.P. (C) No. 8910 of 2008. Two separate orders dated 16th December, 2008 were passed by this Court in each of the writ petitions asking DDA to include the name of the Petitioners in the next mini draw for tail-end priority cases. The Petitioners' names were included in the tail-end draw held on 3rd November, 2009. Thereafter, the impugned DALs were issued to each of the Petitioners on 25th March, 2010. Although each of them had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the demanded amount on 16th September, 2010, they did not deposit the balance amount. 5. The Petitioners' names were included in the tail-end draw held on 3rd November, 2009. Thereafter, the impugned DALs were issued to each of the Petitioners on 25th March, 2010. Although each of them had deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the demanded amount on 16th September, 2010, they did not deposit the balance amount. 5. In the present writ petitions this Court on 21st September, 2010 passed two separate orders permitting each of the Petitioners to deposit Rs. 9.50 lakh as against the demanded amount of Rs. 10,80,250/-, subject to which the allotment would not be cancelled. However, neither of the Petitioners has been able to comply with the said order. 6. Mr. N. Kinra, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relies upon the decision dated 18th October, 2005 passed by this Court in Raj Kumar Malhotra v. Delhi Development Authority, [W.P. (Civil) No. 5793 of 2005] which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 4th June, 2008 in LPA No. 373 of 2006 DDA v. Raj Kumar Malhotra). The SLP filed by the DDA was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13th October, 2008. It is submitted that the DDA ought to charge the cost prevailing on 27th September, 2007 when the first draw for tail-end priority cases was held and also not charged interest for the period of delay in issuing the DALs thereafter. 7. Mr. Rajesh Mahajan and Mr. Arun Birbal, learned Counsel appearing for the DDA however pointed out that in the present case the DDA was not at fault. The Petitioners' names were included in the tail-end draw held on 3rd November, 2069 pursuant to the decisions of this Court dated 16th December, 2008 and therefore, cost has been correctly calculated as appended in the impugned DALs. 8. This Court finds that in each of the petitions, the Petitioners defaulted in not paying the cancellation charges as demanded by the DDA. Therefore, their names could not be included in the draw of tail-end priority cases held on 27th September, 2007. The DDA included the Petitioners' names in the draw held on 3rd November, 2009 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 16th December, 2008. The DALs have been issued within four months thereafter. It cannot therefore be said that there was any delay in issuing the DALs by the DDA 9. The DDA included the Petitioners' names in the draw held on 3rd November, 2009 pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 16th December, 2008. The DALs have been issued within four months thereafter. It cannot therefore be said that there was any delay in issuing the DALs by the DDA 9. The facts in Raj Kumar Malhotra v. DDA are distinguishable. Further, this Court finds that the DDA's Circular dated 24th December, 2010 issued by the DDA regarding allotments under the tail-end priority category does not really help the Petitioners' cases. No ground is made out for interfering with the DALs issued by the DDA. However, in the special facts and circumstances of each case, the Petitioners are granted a further period of eight weeks from today to make the payment as demanded by the DDA. 10. The petitions and the pending applications are dismissed. Application dismissed.