Harbhahan Lal v. D.D.A

ANIL KUMAR, J.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. fC.) No.2669/2008 % Date of Decision: 17.09.2009 Sh.Harbhajan Lai •••• Petitioner Through Mr.N.Kinra, Advocate. Versus Delhi Development Authority .... Respondent Ttirough Ms.Manisha 'iVagi, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referredto the reporteror not? I 3. Whetherthe judgmentshouldbe reported in j the Digest? ANIL KUMAR. J. (ORAL) * 1. seeks a direction to the respondent to inchide his in the draw of lots and to allot a LIG flat as he is a registrant it since" 1979.. 2. The plea of the petitioner is that the petitioner booked a LIG flat by registration No.18609 under the NPRS Scheme 1979. He was allotted a LIG flat No. 109, Pocket 14, Sector-20, Phase III, Ground Floor, Rohini a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 31®^ December, 1993 was issued to the petitioner stipulating the last date for payment as 31®^ March, 1994. Page 1of6 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. 3. Before the date for payment of consideration under the demand- cum-allotment letter, the petitioner sought cancellation of the LIG flat allotted to him under the policy of the respondent and also deposited an amount of Rs.300/- towards the cancellation by challan No.084967 dated 7th February, 1994. After cancellation of his flat, the petitioner became entitled for consideration of his priority as the tail end priority. 4. The plea of the petitioner is that thereafter he had been approaching the respondent time and again in order to ascertain whether his priority has matured and a flat has been allotted to him, however, nothing was communicated to him. 5. According to the policy of the respondent those registrants who had got their allotment cancelledwere entitled for considerationoftheir priority as a tail end priority and they were liable to deposit the cancellation charges equivalent to 20% of the amount deposited by such registrants at the time of registration. 6. The petitioner contended that though the priority of the petitioner had matured in 2007 and the case of the petitioner should have been included in the tail end priority draw which was held on 27^^ September,2007, however, his name was not included on the ground that the petitioner had not paid the cancellation charges. W.P(C) No,2669/2008 Page 2of5 7. The assertion of the petitioner is that he had paid Rs.300/- as the charges as per the policy prevalent at the time of allotment of flat in 1993, however, the respondent demanded another amount of Rs. 1701/-on 25th July, 2007. 8. contends that on account of non payment of charges the case of the petitioner could not be declined to be considered by respondent, though he had deposited cancellation charges and had also submitted the proof of deposit to the respondent. The petitioner, however, deposited amount of Rs.1701/- demanded by the respondent, though according to the petitioner, he was not liable to pay the same snd on account of nonpayment of same his name could not be excluded. 9. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel petitiofier on Raj Kumar Malhotra v. DDA, W.P(C) No,5793/2005 decided on 18*^ October, 2005 holding that the respondent being a state, profit motive cannot be the goal and in the circumstances where the fiats are not allotted for a considerable period, equity leans in favour of the applicants. In the circumstances, it wa.s held that DDA was liable to consider the case of allotment of those allottees also who had not I paid the cancellation charges. The Court had directed the DDA to include the name of such registrant for allotment of flats and such Page 3of5 registrants were directed to pay cancellation charges along with interest at 15% per annum. 10. The petition is contested by the respondent contending inter-alia that the scheme for tail end priority was closed on 31®^ Dece