Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

C.M. No. 1174/2012

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 13 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of.

C.M. No. 1175/2012

For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 65 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned.

Application stands disposed of. LPA No. 47/2012

Late Sumer Chand, father of the petitioner was a registrant under the New Pattern Residential Scheme 1979 floated by DDA for being allotted a flat in the Low Income Group. Unfortunately for Sumer Chand, number of eligible applicants being large, he was assigned a priority number, as were all others. As and when flats were constructed by DDA, names of eligible candidates, as per the priority number assigned to them, were entered in a draw of lots and a flat was allotted. Sumer Chand''s entitlement matured in March 2006, but unfortunately for Sumer Chand, he had expired on September 03, 2004. The appellant, who is son of Sumer Chand applied to DDA belatedly on February 21, 2006 seeking his name to be substituted as the successor in interest of his father as an eligible applicant. To appellant''s misfortune, he did not furnish the relevant papers pertaining to his claim of having succeeded to the estate of his father and admittedly appellant''s mother Champa Devi was the other natural heir of Sumer Chand. It was only by June 29, 2009 that appellant made good the deficiencies with respect to his claim for substitution and thus mutation was sanctioned in his name on said date. In the meanwhile, Sumer Chand''s entitlement for name to be entered in a draw of lots having matured by March 2006, at a draw of lots held on March 23, 2006 a LIG flat was allotted to him and for which a demand cum allotment letter dated July 22, 2006 was issued to him requiring him to pay Rs. 7,94,602.46 by October 18, 2006; and inspite of the demand cum allotment letter being received by the appellant he made no payment; probably for the reason his name was still under consideration for being substituted as the successor in interest of his father.

On account of no payment being made for the LIG flat allotted in the name of Sumer Chand, DDA proposed to cancel the allotment but ultimately decided not to cancel the same; on the term that appellant would pay the current costs for the flat in question and for which DDA demanded Rs. 11,66,434/- to be paid by November 09, 2010.

Appellant challenged the demand, pleading in the writ petition, that since his name was pending substitution on death of his father, DDA could not revised the demand.

The writ petition has been dismissed on account of the reason, firstly appellant sought mutation belatedly: his father having died on September 03, 2004 and substitution being sought on February 21, 2006; secondly the reason the application seeking substitution was defective and deficiencies were made good on June 29, 2009 and lastly the reason that appellant could have deposited the price demanded by DDA pending his name being substituted as the successor in interest of his father. The learned Single Judge has also reasoned that DDA had incurred the capital costs towards construction and would have lost interest if said amount was kept in a deposit by DDA.

It is true that the appellant was negligent in pursuing his claim, but in harmony with the ethos of the decision impugned, we see no reason why DDA should not be recompensed with interest, rather than to permit DDA to take advantage of the rise in cost of land for the same flat which was allotted to appellant''s father way back in the year 2006. We highlight that DDA had constructed the flat in the year 2006 and while making the allotment in said year had charged for the cost of construction incurred and the market value of the land, albeit at pre-determined rates, proportionate to the covered area of the flat. It is not that DDA had to acquire another parcel of land at a higher rate and then construct a flat for the appellant.

Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant is ready and willing to pay interest @ 10% per annum from the date payment had to be made pursuant to the demand cum allotment letter July 22, 2006 and concedes that the last date for making payment was October 18, 2006.

The appeal stands disposed of setting aside the impugned order and disposing of W.P. (C) 732/2011 filed by the appellant directing that appellant would be liable to pay Rs. 7,94,602.46 to DDA together with simple interest @ 10% per annum commencing from October 19, 2006 till date of payment. We note that under the impugned order the appellant was granted time upto November 25, 2011 to make the payment demanded by DDA, and the appellant claims to have made good the payment. We thus direct DDA to compute interest as afore directed and off-set the same with respect to the amount deposited by the appellant and if it is found that an amount in excess is deposited, to refund the same. No costs.