Lalit Mohan Bharati vs D.D.A.

V.K. Jain, J.—The petitioner before this Court applied to DDA for allotment of a shop under its scheme for allotment of such shops to the members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes on leasehold basis. In the draw of lots held on 12.08.1998, one shop/stall bearing No. 8 in CSC, Timarpur, Delhi was allotted to the petitioner and vide demand cum allotment letter dated 09.12.1988, he was asked to deposit the amount of Rs. 19,045/- towards 25% of the reserved price of the aforesaid shop. The aforesaid amount was duly deposited by the petitioner. Later on, there was an additional demand of Rs. 13,195/- which was also duly deposited by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 23.10.1997, DDA informed the petitioner that the allotment made to him had been cancelled on account of his failure to deposit the demanded amount of Rs. 19,045/-. Since, in fact, the petitioner had already deposited the amount demanded by DDA, the cancellation of the aforesaid allotment was obviously uncalled for and unjustified. On the petitioner representing in this regard for the first time on 14.02.2002 followed by various other representations, DDA vide demand cum allotment letter dated 24.04.2012 allotted a shop measuring 38.840 square metres along with courtyard measuring 9.690 square metres to him at the price of Rs. 43,66,545/- Being aggrieved from DDA demanding the price prevalent in the year 2012, the petitioner is before this Court. The only relief claimed in this petition is quashing of the demand letter dated 24.04.2012 with a direction to DDA to issue revise demand cum allotment letter in respect of the shop subject matter of the demand letter dated 24.04.2012 or by holding a mini draw and allotting one of the shops out of the auctions given by the petitioner at old cost as prevalent in the year 1988.

The petition has been contested by DDA. It has been conceded in the counter-affidavit of DDA that the petitioner having deposited the amount demanded by DDA at the time of allotment made in the year 1988, cancellation was not called for. Realizing its mistake, DDA has offered to allot a shop measuring 11.60 square metres to the petitioner in Pitampura at same the cost at which the shop was allotted to him in the year 1988.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the allotment made in the year 1988 came to be cancelled without any fault on the part of the petitioner, DDA, while making allotment of shop measuring 38.84 square metres to him, should have charged at the price prevalent in the year 1988 when the initial allotment was made to him. This, in my view, would not be justified for the simple reason that the size of the shop allotted to the petitioner in the year 1988 was only 11.37 square metres. The petitioner, therefore, cannot insist upon allotment of a much bigger shop measuring 38.84 square metres at the cost prevalent in the year 1988, his right being only to a shop of equal size though at the price prevalent in the year 1988. Therefore, DDA, in my view, is justified in offering allotment of shop measuring 11.37 square metres to the petitioner at the price prevalent in the year 1988.

Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed a list of three shops and the prayer made in the petition is that one of the three shops may be allotted to him by holding a mini draw. I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether these shops measure around 11.37 square metres each, so that in case the size of these shops matches the size of the shop, which was allotted initially to the petitioner, DDA may be directed to hold a mini draw by including these three shops in the said draw. The learned counsel, however, fairly concedes that the area of these shops is larger as would be evident from the use of the words "size big", written in the letter, containing particulars of these three shops. Obviously, DDA cannot be directed to hold a mini draw, including therein shops which are larger than the shop which was initially allotted to the petitioner in the year 1988.

During the course of arguments, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner could either opt for a shop measuring around 11.37 square metres at the price prevalent in the year 1988 or he could have the shop of bigger size, i.e., 38.84 square yards allotted to him in the year 2012 at the price prevalent at that time. However, neither of these options is acceptable to the petitioner.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, no relief to the petitioner can be granted by the Court. It is, however, directed that if the petitioner is ready to accept allotment of Shop No. 3, 4 and 21 in CSC Y.P. Pitampura, he would convey his acceptance to DDA in this regard within a period of one week from today, whereupon DDA shall allot the aforesaid shop to him within four weeks thereafter. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, his money has been utilized by DDA for as many as 25 years. It is, therefore, made clear that this order does not come in the way of the petitioner seeking such compensation/damages from DDA, as is open to him in law, on account of the delay in allotment of the alternative shop or on account of utilizing his money for as many as 25 years.

The petition stands disposed of.

A copy of this order be given dasti under the signature of Court Master.