JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. : - Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent.

3. The appellant, Delhi Development Authority (D.D.A.) prepared and published a scheme called "Registration Scheme of New Pattern, 1979 of intending pur-chasers of flats to be constructed by Delhi Development Authority" providing the procedure for allotment of flats con-structed by it. Clause (11) of the Scheme, issued as a brochure says that "in case of flats allotted under Hire-Purchase basis, the cost of the land plus 20% of the balance cost of the flat will be recovered as initial deposit at the time of allotment and balance amount will be recovered in monthly instalments spread over a period of 7 years in case of M.I.G., 10 years in case of L.I.G. and 15 years in case of Janata flats". Clause (14) says that "It may please be noted that the plinth area of the flats indicated and the estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject to revision / modifidation depending upon the exigencies of layout, cost of construction etc."

4. The appellant has been constructing flats in several localities in Delhi and has been selling them to needy citizens from time to time in accordance with the procedure indicated in the said brochure. Since there are always more applicants than the number of flats available, the appellant has been adopting the method of drawl of lots among the registered applicants to select the allottees. One of such draws was held on October 12, 1990 for allotment of certain number of flats at which the respondent was successful. An intimation was sent to him on January 9/13, 1991 informing him that a flat No. 42-A, Type-3, Pocket-A2, GRP-5 in Kondli Gharoli has been allotted to him and that he must remit the initial deposit as per the rules.

5. The writ petition was occasioned by the fact that between the date on which lots were drawn and the date on which the allotment of flat was communicated to the respondent, the land rates were revised by the D.D.A. by Circular dated December 6, 1990. There has been a substantial enhancement of land rates in the region of about fifty to seventy per cent. Since the allotment to the respondent was made on January 9/13, 1991, he was called upon to remit the first instalment of the price of the flat determined taking into account the revised land rates of aforesaid. The respondents contention in the writ petition was that only the land rates prevailing on the date of drawl of lots should be charged to him. He submitted that the revised land rates cannot be applied to him inasmuch as the said rates came into force after the draw of lots. This contention has been upheld by the Division Bench. The reasoning behind the allowing of writ petition is disclosed from the following extracts from the impugned order. (Indeed, it is a short order and what we are extracting hereinbelow represents almost the entire order):

"It is the case of the petitioner that though the draw was held on 12th October, 1990, it was because of the inefficiency of the respondent that the allotment-cum-demand letter was not issued till 9th January - 13th January, 1991. In the meanwhile, the respndent has revised the land rate on 6th December, 1990. Thus, the petitioner was made to pay higher amount for the LIG flat which he became entitled to get in the draw held on 12th October, 1990.

Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent and it is admitted that the petitioner became successful in the draw of lot held on 12th October, 1990. There is no reason given for not issuing allotment-cum-demand letter till 9th January - 13th January, 1991.

It is thus clear that the allotment-cum-demand letter was delayed in the office of the respondent. In the meanwhile, even if the land rates have been increased, since the petitioner had become entitled to get the flat on 12