AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
19 paragraphs · 385 wordsA.K. Sikri, Acting Chief Justice
The admitted facts are that the respondent had applied in 1979 for an LIG Flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (NPRS
1979). A tail end draw was held under the LIG category on 27.9.2007 as per which the respondent was allotted a flat bearing No. 362, Sector
B-2, Pocket-D, Group-1, Ground Floor, Narela, Delhi. However, no demand/allotment letter was issued by the DDA and which came to be
issued only on 04.02.2010. In this letter, the DDA asked the respondent to pay interest as well @ 7% w.e.f. 1.4.2008 till the date of issue of the
demand/allotment letter impugning the said demand for interest, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned judgment, has
in the aforesaid facts, held that when it was the fault of the DDA in not issuing the demand/allotment letter immediately after holding the tail end
draw and which was issued only on 4.2.2010, there was no cause, occasion or justification for the DDA to ask for interest from 1.4.2008 till
17.2.2010.
Obviously, after the draw of lots in which a specific flat was allotted to the respondent, it was for the DDA to issue demand/allotment letter as
well. If the DDA has delayed issuing the said demand/allotment letter, the liability to pay interest cannot be fastened upon the respondent/allottee.
We find in para 5 of the impugned order that the learned Single has also made observation to the effect that the DDA could at best have
charged the cost as prevalent on the expiry of four months after the date of tail end draw i.e. 27.9.2007. These observations would not be correct
in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Pushipendra Kumr Jain, . In any case, nothing turns
on that as that was not the issue before the learned Single Judge. We are concerned only with the validity of the action of the DDA in charging the
interest from 1.4.2008 till the date of issue of demand/allotment letter. As held above, interest could not have been charged in the given
circumstances. We thus, do not find anything wrong or blemish in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. This appeal is accordingly
dismissed.
No costs.