HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Click here to view full judgement.
S.Muralidhar, J. -
(1.) This writ petition challenges the validity of a demand made by the
respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by letter dated 18.3.2004 to the
petitioner requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,28,276/- in respect of
an allotment of an MIG Plot No. 11, Pocket -4, Block-B, Sector 17, measuring 60
Sq. metres under the Rohini Residential Scheme in lieu of the old plot No. 70,
Pocket " 14, Sector 24, Phase III. The principal ground on which the petitioner
challenges this demand is that 94% of the sum (comprising the first and second
instalment) in respect of the said Plot had already been made in 1994 and,
therefore, the demand of Rs.6.28 lakhs of the third and final instalment at
current cost, which was only Rs. 5790/- in 1994, is wholly unjustified.
(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioner's mother was issued a letter
of provisional allotment of a plot No. 70, Pocket-14, Sector 24, Rohini
measuring 60 Sq. metres by a letter dated 27.12.1993. The total premium of the
plot was fixed at Rs. 94,782.60. The balance amount, after accounting for the
amounts already paid, was shown to be Rs. 86,355.41 and it was required to be
paid in the following manner:-
"i) Rs. 33,173.91 being balance of 35% of
the total premium (25%of premium of plot plus 10% of the premium as earnest
money) within 30 days from the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter.
ii) Rs. 47,391.30 being 50% of the total
premium within 90 days from the date of issue
of demand- cum- allotment letter.
iii)Rs. 5,720.20 being 15% of total premium
within two months from the date of receipt of communication offering
possession or before taking the possession which ever is earlier."
In para 3 of the said letter it was stated:
"If any instalment of the amounts mentioned above is not paid within prescribed
period of the due date, allotment shall stand cancelled automatically and no
request for restoration of allotment of plot shall be entertained on any grounds
It is not in dispute that the payments of the first and second instalments were
made by the petitioner's mother through pay orders dated 27.1.1994 and
25.3.1994. According to the petitioner, since thereafter there was no
communication from the DDA offering possession of the Plot, no occasion arose
for payment of the third instalment of Rs. 5720.20 which was to be paid within
two months from the date of receipt of such communication.
(3.) In its counter affidavit, the DDA does not say that it issued any such
communication informing the petitioner's mother that she could take possession
of the flat. On the contrary it is stated that as under:-
"It is submitted that in the year 1994 though the mother of the petitioner had
paid the amount towards 1st and 2nd instalments, but the copy of the 3rd challan
were not submitted to the respondent which resulted in the cancellation of said
allotment due to non payment."
It is not even DDA"s stand that there was a requirement that the allottee of a
Plot had to himself or herself submit the copy of the third challan to the DDA.
When the DDA says that the copy of the third challan "was not submitted to it",
what it really means is that the said challan had not been sent to it by the
concerned Bank, which is designated by DDA to facilitate collection of
instalment monies. In fact, it appears that intimation regarding the payment of
the first and second instalments by the petitioner"s mother was also not
received by DDA from the Bank in time. All of this was naturally not in the
control of petitioner's mother. This in turn led to DDA not sending her a
communication about the possession of the Plot which would have triggered the
two month period within which the third instalment would have to be paid. That
stage was never reached owing to DDA's failure to take note of the fact that two
instalments had already been paid in time. Thus the DDA failed, on its own
showing, to perform its part of the condition contained in the original
allotment letter dated 27.12.1993. In the above circumstances, DDA is not
justified in contending that there was a default on the part of the petitioner"s
mother in the payment of the third instalment.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.