Delhi Development Authority v. Sita Ram

ORDER %

12.03.2012 CM No.3178/2012 (for direction). As per the direetions of this Court the appellant DDA has now issued Allotment-eum-Demand Letter with bloek dates 22"^^ December, 2011 to 28''^ December, 2011. However Mr. R.K. Saini has drawn our attention to para 15 of the judgment dated 23'^'' August, 2011 as per which, from the cost to be charged by the appellant DDA, the appellant DDA has to adjust ?10,000/- which was the cost awarded of the appeal and also payment of ?4,29,370/- which had already been deposited by the respondent with the appellant DDA. We make it clear that the amount demanded by the appellant DDA in the Allotment-eum-Demand Letter shall be reduced by the aforesaid amounts. The CM stands disposed of. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 12, 2012/pp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 453/2010 Resarved on: 9**^ August, 2011 % Date of Decision:^!^ugust, 2011 DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ....Appellant Through Mr. M.K. Sinha, Advocate. VERSUS SITA RAM Respondent Through Mr. R.K. Salni and Mr, vSitab All Chaudhary, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KH.ANNA 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? S-tSi 3. Whether the judgment should be ieported in the Digest ? SANJIV KHANNA, J.: In the present intra-Court appeal the challenge is to the decision dated 18^'^ January, 2010 allowing W.P. (C) No. 7947/2009 filed by Sita Ram, the respondent herein against the Delhi Development Authority, the appellant. The learned single Judge by the decision, after balancing equities and to meet the ends of justice, has directed that the appellant shall charge cost of a ground floor flat as it was in October, 2005 and allot the same to the respondent. LPA NO 453/2010 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. IS 2. The respondent had registered for allotment of a LIG flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979. He was assigned priority No. 41540. 3. After nearly 24 years, in the draw of lots held on 30^^ July, 2003, the respondent was allotted a LIG flat on third floor in Sector 17, Rohini on hire-purchase basis. A demand-cum- allotment letter was issued by the appellant with block dates 16*^ September, 2003 - 22"' September, 2003 and the last date of payment was 19'*^ February, 2004. The total cost of the flat was Rs.4,29,370/-. The respondent was given time to make payment of Rs.2,40,213/- by 19^' February, 2004 and the remaining amount of the flat was payable in monthly instalments of Rs.3,188/- per month starting from 10^' January, 2004. It was stated in the letter thai in case payment was not made, the allotment/registration shall stand cancelled. 4. The respondent, on 12*' February, 2004, wrote a letter to the appellant requesting for change of the flat from third floor to ground floor on the ground that his son was phvysically handicapped, having 75% disability, and as such, was incapable of climbing stairs. He deposited Rs.86,000/- with the appellant on 19'^' February, 2004, being 20% of the cost demanded. LPANO.453/2010 5. On 3'^ June, 2004 the appellant asked the respondeni to submit an attested copy of the medical certificate of his son and proof of the relationship duly attested by a Gazetted Officer. These documents were submitted on 19^*^ June, 2004. After another period of three months on 23'^'^ September, 2004, the appellant called upon the respondent to submit photocopy of his ration card and attend the office of the Assistant Director (LIG) Housing with the documents. The respondent states that he attended the office of the Assistant Director (LIG) Housing on October, 2004 and deposited a copy of the documents asked for. The appellant has disputed the said statement but we are inclined to accept the stand of the respondent as no such demand and failure was indicated/mentioned in the subsequent letters written by the appellant. On 29^'' November, 2004, the appellant called upon the respondent to submit the latest medical report of his son issued from a Government hospital. The respondent states that he had submitted a photocopy of the latest medical report on 21®* April, 2005. 6. There was, thereafter, a hiatus on part of the appellant and no response or communication was addressed. The respondent made a representation on 20**^ November, 2007 and appeared in LPANO.453/2010 // the public hearing before the Director (Housing) on 2/^ March, 2008. Vide letter dated 9^^ April, 2008 the respondent was asked to meet the Commissioner (Housing) on 16*^ April, 2008. The said meeting as per the respondent was held and he was as