Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DAILYLAW 1348 (DEL)

Veena Gandhi v. DDA

2008-05-19

Kailash Gambhir

body2008
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. 1. The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking directions for quashing the decision of the respondent in allotting LIG Flat No. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector11, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner at almost double the price of earlier flat being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and policy of equity, justice and good conscience and also to issue writ commanding the respondent to forthwith issue to the petitioner a fresh demand letter in respect of LIG Flat No. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi at the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to her in 1991 after adjusting the amount already paid by her after adding interest thereupon @ 12% pa for 10 years. The facts and circumstances of the case, which are relevant for deciding the present petition, are as follows: In the year 1979, the DDA, respondent herein, under the Delhi Development (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) regulations, 1968 announced a scheme for allotment of DDA flats to the citizens of the country, namely, the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner applied for and was registered under the aforesaid scheme for the allotment of an LIG flat. The petitioner waited for the allotment and after a long wait of 12 years, in the draw held on 15.02.1991, the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing no. 4, First Floor, Pocket-6, Block-A, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi at a total disposal cost of Rs. 1,64,200/- on hire purchase basis and an allotment cum demand letter dated 08.08.1991 was issued to the petitioner in this regard. As the allotment was on hire purchase basis, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 56,722/-as the initial deposit on or before 07.09.1991 and the balance amount was to be paid in the form of monthly installments of Rs. 1424.12/-. Mr. R.K. Saini counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made payment of initial deposit on 07.09.1991 and made payments of some installments also. 56,722/-as the initial deposit on or before 07.09.1991 and the balance amount was to be paid in the form of monthly installments of Rs. 1424.12/-. Mr. R.K. Saini counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made payment of initial deposit on 07.09.1991 and made payments of some installments also. The counsel submitted that the possession letter of the said flat was issued to the petitioner on 27.05.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner contacted the Junior Engineer at the site to take the possession of the said flat and it was then to her utter shock and surprise, she came to know that the said flat already stood allotted to another person who had already taken the possession of the said flat, thus, the matter became a case of double allotment of the same flat. The counsel urged that the said position was immediately brought to the notice of the concerned officials and the petitioner requested them to allot her another flat at the same cost at the earliest. The counsel contended that the petitioner also met the higher officials of the respondent DDA, who also realized the mistake of DDA in allotting the aforesaid flat to the petitioner, which was a double allotment. The counsel further contended that the petitioner also appeared in a number of public hearings from 1994 to May 2001 and also made various representations to the DDA. The counsel also submitted that ultimately after the representation dated 31.05.2001, the DDA issued allotment-cum-demand letter dated 01.06.2001 in respect of an alternative flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, to the petitioner, in which disposal cost of the flat was shown to be Rs. 1,91,100/- (1,55,900/- + 35,200/-) and an amount of Rs. 1,36,557/- was demanded towards installments already due w.e.f. September 1992 till April 2001 and a further sum of Rs. 67,306/- was demanded towards interest due upon the aforesaid installments and over that a sum of Rs. 85,348/- was demanded as amount due on 65 installments @ Rs. 1313.05/- pm and as such an amount of Rs. 2,89,211/- (136557 + 67306+ 85348) was determined as amount payable by the petitioner. The counsel urged that the allotment dated 01.06.2001 was made to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier allotment, which was a double allotment, therefore, the allotment dated 01.06.2001 ought to have been made at the same cost of Rs. 2,89,211/- (136557 + 67306+ 85348) was determined as amount payable by the petitioner. The counsel urged that the allotment dated 01.06.2001 was made to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier allotment, which was a double allotment, therefore, the allotment dated 01.06.2001 ought to have been made at the same cost of Rs. 1,64,200/- at which the earlier allotment dated 08.08.1991 was made. The counsel contended that the subsequent allotment was in clear violation of the policy of the DDA according to which in a case of double allotment, any subsequent allotment made thereafter will be made without charging any interest from the allottee. The counsel further submitted that thereafter, the DDA issued a possession letter dated 19.07.2001 in respect of the flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi and the actual possession was handed over to the petitioner on 27.08.2001 by the DDA without insisting upon payment of installments at the aforesaid rate. The petitioner, however, in the meanwhile, had approached the Lok Adalat of the DDA and prayed that she be given interest on the amount deposited by her with the DDA for 10 years and that for the alternative flat the same price be charged as that of the original allotment. But the Lok Adalat could not give any relief to the petitioner. The counsel also asserted that through some public representative, grievance was also made to the Chief Minister of Delhi, but still the petitioner could not get any relief. The counsel submitted that finally, the petitioner through her husband made a representation on 02.06.2004 to the Commissioner (Housing) requesting for re-calculation, in a just and proper manner, of the alternative flat allotted to her and also that she be given interest on the amount deposited by her with the DDA for 10 years. The counsel maintained that after making the aforesaid representation, the petitioner waited for the reply of the respondent DDA and the desired remedial action in the matter but nothing was done by the DDA, rather on the contrary the DDA started threatening to cancel the allotment and take back possession of the flat. The counsel maintained that after making the aforesaid representation, the petitioner waited for the reply of the respondent DDA and the desired remedial action in the matter but nothing was done by the DDA, rather on the contrary the DDA started threatening to cancel the allotment and take back possession of the flat. The counsel submitted that the petitioner then left with no option but to move this court apprehending that true to its style of inefficient working and callous attitude the DDA instead of taking any remedial action in the matter may not cancel the allotment and take back possession of the flat forcibly from the petitioner. The counsel contended that the act of the DDA is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 & 21 of the Constitution, the Rules, Regulations and policy of equity, justice and good conscience. The counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: 1. Ashwani Kumar Bhatia vs. DDA in CWP No. 1663/1998 decided on 30.08.1998; 2. Smt. Chander Kanta Sharma vs. DDA in CWP No. 1415/1998 decided on 6.08.1999; 3. Sh. S.K. Wadhawan vs. DDA in CWP No. 1518/1998 decided on 24.08.1999; 4. Shyam Sunder Rathi vs. DDA in CWP No. 581/2002 decided on 8.2.2002; and 5. Trilok Chand vs. DDA in CWP No. 2294/2002 decided on 25.11.2002. Per contra, Mr. C. Mohan Rao counsel for the respondent admitted that the petitioner applied for and was registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of a LIG flat and in the draw held on 15.02.1991, the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing no. 4, First Floor, Pocket-6, Block-A, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi on hire purchase basis and an allotment cum demand letter dated 08.08.1991 was issued to the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner was required to deposit the amount as mentioned in the allotment cum demand letter dated 08.08.1991 and was further required to submit the relevant documents along with the details of deposit of initial amount, latest by 6.11.1991. But the petitioner failed to give the timely intimation of her making payment, thus, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, as a result of non-intimation of deposit of initial amount and non-furnishing of the required set of documents, the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled automatically, the counsel contended. But the petitioner failed to give the timely intimation of her making payment, thus, as per the terms and conditions of the allotment, as a result of non-intimation of deposit of initial amount and non-furnishing of the required set of documents, the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled automatically, the counsel contended. Further the counsel submitted that the intimation of deposit of required amount was to be mandatorily given to the DDA latest by 06.11.1991, but it was brought to the notice of the Department on 23.04.1992, i.e. after the expiry of the stipulated period. The counsel maintained that since the allotment made to the petitioner was automatically cancelled after 06.11.1991, the flat in question was allotted by the department to another waiting registrant i.e. Sh. Kailash Parsad vide file no. F.15 (89)/92/LIG/NP in the subsequent draw held on 26.03.1992 and the possession letter was issued to him on 09.11.1993. The counsel further submitted that as a result of some mistake on the part of some officials of the respondent DDA, the possession letter of the same flat was wrongly issued to the petitioner on 27.05.1994. The counsel submitted that on coming to know the said mistake on the part of such officials the matter was thoroughly investigated by the Department and the defaulting officials were placed under suspension. The department on realizing the error on the part of its officials and realizing the fact that since the petitioner had deposited the required amount on 07.09.1991 in terms of the demand cum allotment letter dated 08.08.1991, allotted another flat bearing no. 36, Pocket-11, Sector-21, Rohini to the petitioner but she refused to accept the same. Keeping in view the hardship faced by the petitioner, the case of the petitioner was discussed in the meeting of the Committee for Hardship, comprising of three Higher Level Officers i.e. Vice Chairman, DDA, Finance Member, DDA & Commissioner (H), DDA held on 25.01.2001 and the matter of the petitioner was decided by the Hon’ble Vice Chairman of DDA directing allotment of alternative flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner, by charging the old cost plus 12% interest on the unpaid amount as a special case. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner, by charging the old cost plus 12% interest on the unpaid amount as a special case. Counsel thus contended that the case of the petitioner was examined in detail by the Competent Authority and proper relief has already been granted to the petitioner by giving allotment and possession of an alternative flat, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any further relief from this Court. The counsel also urged that there is no violation of the policy of the law laid down by this Hon’ble Court and the action of the respondent is strictly in consonance with the policy of the DDA and the petitioner is unnecessarily trying to take the benefit of her own mistake. The counsel maintained that the cost charged from the petitioner is according to the policy decision of the DDA and the judgments cited by the petitioner are inapplicable to the present case. Refuting the said submissions of the counsel for the respondent the counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder contended that the petitioner was not required to give any intimation, timely or otherwise, of the payment made by her, in as much as the payment is made in the bank account of the DDA and the counsel submitted that this court has in Kailash Kishore vs. DDA in CWP No. 215/1990 vide order dated 6.7.1990 held that the intimation of such deposit is not required to be made to the DDA by the allottee, therefore, the allotment of the petitioner getting automatically cancelled could not arise. The counsel further contended that the possession letter of the same flat was issued to the petitioner on 27.05.1994 and ignoring this fact the DDA is taking up the false plea of automatic cancellation with the ulterior motive to take the case of the petitioner out of the ambit of the double allotment so as to deprive her from taking the benefit of DDA policy relating to double allotment. The counsel contended that it is surprising that after issuing possession letter to the other allottee on 9.11.1993, the same was issued to the petitioner also in respect of the same flat on 27.05.1994. The counsel contended that it is surprising that after issuing possession letter to the other allottee on 9.11.1993, the same was issued to the petitioner also in respect of the same flat on 27.05.1994. The counsel urged that the respondent is liable to bear the consequences, if at all the officials committed such grave mistake, but in any case the petitioner should not be made to bear the brunt of the mistake on the part of the DDA or its officials. The counsel also maintained that the alleged thorough investigation of the matter by the department and the defaulting officials being placed under suspension is of no avail and/or succor to the petitioner as she has to be properly compensated and provided full relief as a victim of double allotment. The counsel while denying the submissions of the counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was allotted an alternative flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, after 7 years and that too as a result of several representations and number of personal visits made by the petitioner. The counsel also submitted that the question of payment of further installments till 1.06.2001 did not arise, especially when she was issued allotment letter in respect of the demised flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The petitioner who is now 52 years old must have taken a dream to have her own house in Delhi about 30 years back, when the DDA had commenced a scheme for allotment of flats to the citizens under New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. The petitioner then never realized that her dream to have even an LIG flat would be completely shattered at the hands of body like DDA, which has acquired the status of profit making commercial body in complete derogation of its assigned role and social objective of fulfilling the basic requirements of the residents of Delhi to provide them a shelter to which they could call their own ‘sweet home.’ Nowhere, in the world such an apathy of a Government body can be seen. It is exasperating to notice the callousness and audacious conduct of the officials of the DDA in their dealing with the citizens. It is exasperating to notice the callousness and audacious conduct of the officials of the DDA in their dealing with the citizens. The said NPRS scheme was announced in the year 1979 and after the commencement of the scheme, the petitioner had filled the requisite form and deposited an amount of Rs.1,500/-as long back as in 1979. The petitioner kept waiting patiently for the commencement of the draw which was held on 15.2.91 after a long wait of 12 years. The petitioner must have felt overjoyed after receiving in her hand an allotment letter dated 8.8.91 for a flat bearing no. 4, First Floor, Pocket-6, Block-A, Sector-16, Rohini, Delhi, at a total disposal cost of Rs.1,64,200/- on hire purchase basis without realizing that real struggle would begin from this stage. As the allotment was on hire purchase basis, the petitioner was required to pay Rs.56,722/-as an initial deposit. The petitioner made further payments towards the remaining instalments as per the schedule of instalment detailed in the allotment letter. The possession letter of the said flat was issued to the petitioner on 27.5.94 and when the petitioner contacted the junior engineer at the site to take the possession of the said flat, the petitioner received an utter shock to find another allottee in possession of the said flat. As per own policy of the DDA such a case becomes a case of double allotment due to some mistake on the part of the officials of the DDA. Now from this period, the struggle of this allottee knocking the various doors of the authorities in power started. The petitioner appeared in number of public hearings w.e.f. 1994 to May 2001 and made various representations. The struggle of 27 years like fighting in the freedom struggle vehemently led to grant of another allotment-cum-demand letter dated 1.6.2001 in respect of allotment of flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi at a disposal cost of Rs.1,91,100/-. Besides disposal cost of the said flat a demand of Rs.67,306/-was raised towards the interest of outstanding monthly instalment w.e.f. October, 1992 till October, 2001. The amount of Rs.85,342/- was demanded towards the amount due on 65 installments and thus, in all, demand was raised for a sum of Rs.2,89,211/-. Besides disposal cost of the said flat a demand of Rs.67,306/-was raised towards the interest of outstanding monthly instalment w.e.f. October, 1992 till October, 2001. The amount of Rs.85,342/- was demanded towards the amount due on 65 installments and thus, in all, demand was raised for a sum of Rs.2,89,211/-. Aggrieved with such an arbitrary demand raised by the DDA, the petitioner earlier approached the Lok Adalat of the DDA and also approached the office of the Chief Minister, Delhi, but without any results, then ultimately, the present writ petition has been filed. The stand taken by the respondent DDA is quite baffling as instead of feeling repentant or remorse, the respondent DDA shamelessly raised the additional demand. Such mindset and atrocious conduct of the concerned officials of the respondent DDA deserves serious condemnation. Through various orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court from time to time finality has already been given to some of the contentious issues concerning such allotments, but ignoring the dictum of law the officials of the DDA keep perpetuating their illegal acts giving an impression as if they derive some kind of sadistic pleasure to harass the citizens. I am of the view that where there is no dispute on the legal position then all such cases should be redressed at the level of the DDA itself without causing trouble to the allottees/applicants to run from pillar to post and then ultimately coming to the door steps of the Courts. I believe that the DDA has its fullfledged law department, who can well advise the other departments of DDA dealing with such cases not to create any sort of obstacles and hindrances at least in those situations where the law is already well settled. The DDA and its officials must come out from the cobwebs and despotic style of functioning and ensure how best they can serve the residents of Delhi. In the light of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed. The respondent shall now issue fresh demand-cum-allotment letter and charge the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991 and after giving due adjustment of the amounts already paid by the petitioner, the flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11,Rohini, Delhi shall be allotted to the petitioner. The respondent shall now issue fresh demand-cum-allotment letter and charge the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1991 and after giving due adjustment of the amounts already paid by the petitioner, the flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11,Rohini, Delhi shall be allotted to the petitioner. Since enormous delay has occurred in allotment of the said flat in favour of the petitioner for no fault of her, therefore, the respondent shall pay interest @12% on the amount of instalments as were deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the earlier allotment for the intervening period reckoning from the date of earlier deposit and the date of recent allotment, besides costs of Rs.25,000/- for causing miseries in the life of the petitioner. With these directions, the petition stands allowed.