DHANI RAM KAPOOR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner got registered for the allotment of L.I.G.,flat under a scheme of Delhi Development Authority (in short 'DDA') to allot flats to the residents of Delhi. After waiting for eleven years, the petitioner was allotted L.I.G. category flat on the ground floor in Kondii Gharoli on hire purchase basis at a total price of Rs. 1,29,400.00 Mr.R K Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that as per the demand letter, the petitioner deposited a sum of s.27,857.92 paise on 26.5.1990 within stipulated period. In the said demand letter, which is at page-14 of the paper book, it was mentioned that the monthly instalment in relation to the flat, which has been allotted to the petitioner shall be Rs. 1337.12 paise. The petitioner deposited the instalments for the months of July and August also on 9.8.1990 as per the copy of the Challan, which is at page-16 of the paper book. When the petitioner did not get the possession of the flat in question, he visited to the office of the respondent-DDA and after many such visits only in the month of November'1990, he was informed that his allotment w as cancelled on account of not depositing certain documents within 90 days from the issue of the letter. On 16.11.1990 the petitioner submitted the required documents with the respondent. The petitioner thereafter was informed vide letter of the respondent-DDA dated 8.3.1991 that he will be eligible for allotment of a flat in the next draw of lot to be conducted by the respondent and cancellation charges had to be deposited by the petitioner, which the petitioner deposited on 12.4.1991.

(2.) Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent-DDA on 12.4.1991 stating Inter alia that the petitioner had deposited the amount as demanded by the DDA in time and, therefore, cancellation of the allotment in his favour was illegal and arbitrary and also stated reasons in the representation so made by him to the Vice-Chairman of the respondent- DDA for non-depositing the documents in time. It has been averred in Para-14 of the petition that the Vice-chairman of the respondent took a sympathetic view on the representation of the petition and ordered that if the flat was still available the allotment of the same be made to the petitioner and possession thereof should also be given to him and if the flat has already been allotted to someone else then another flat in the same locality' be allotted to the petitioner within 15 days. Thereafter the petitioner w as allotted a flat bearing No.3-B, Pocket A-l, GRP 8 & 9, Kondii Gharoli, on 11.2.1992 but the respondent demanded amount of Rs.2,15,600.00 Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr.Saini, learned counsel appearing for te petitioner, has contended that the amount raising from Rs. 1,29,400.00 to Rs. 2,15,600.00 in the facts and circumstances of the case is illegal and arbitrary. Mr. Saini has further contended that the cancellation of the flat by the respondent Authority after allotment without giving an opportunity of being heard, is totally arbitrary and illegal, more so, when the petitioner had deposited the full amount as demanded by the respondent and w as also paying regular instalments. Mr.Saini has also contended that the respondent adopted double standards in treating the petitioner as in other cases w -here even the amount demanded by the respondent has not been deposited, the respondent Authority had issued show cause notices to them whereas in the case of the petitioner, even after the amount has been deposited and monthly instalments for two months have also been paid, without giving any notice the respondent has cancelled the allotment of the petitioner, which is against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel has contended that even the cancellation order was not communicated to the petitioner. Mr. Saini in support of his contentions has cited the case of Kanta Raju VS.DDA C. W.P.No. 587/1990 decided on 18.12.1990, in which it is held that-