Back
2004 Supreme(Del) 1187
High Court Of Delhi
SURENDER KUMAR MEHTA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Respondent
W.P.(C.) 19095 of 2004
Decided On : 12/16/2004
ANIL SAPRA, N.K.CHAUDHRY, R.K.SAINI, RICHA KAPOOR, SUMiT BANSAL
The court found that the petitioners who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees. The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
Headnote:
DDA - Residential Scheme - NPRS-1979 - [WP (C) 17473/04, WP (C) 19095/2004, WP (C) 14575/04, WP (C) 12407/04, WP (C) 1093/01, WP (C) 1530/02, WP (C) 7061/02, WP (C) 12779/04, WP (C) 19674/04, WP (C) 14122/04, WP (C) 13757/04, WP (C) 15090/04, WP (C) 14186/04, WP (C) 14705/04, WP (C) 16766/04, WP (C) 14443/04, WP (C) 12927/04, WP (C) 19674/04, WP (C) 14122/04, WP (C) 13757/04] - The court considered the issue of DDA's ability to resile from its office order dated 21. 11. 2002, which stipulates that in cases where DDA has failed to change the address despite communication of the same by the allottee, the allottee is entitled to the flat at the original price and cannot be burdened for the fault of the DDA. The court analyzed various cases where the priority of the registrants matured, and the allotment letters were sent to the wrong address, leading to delays in the allotment process. The court found that the allottees who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees. The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002. The court found that the petitioners who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees. The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The court considered the issue of DDA's ability to resile from its office order dated 21. 11. 2002, which stipulates that in cases where DDA has failed to change the address despite communication of the same by the allottee, the allottee is entitled to the flat at the original price and cannot be burdened for the fault of the DDA. The court analyzed various cases where the priority of the registrants matured, and the allotment letters were sent to the wrong address, leading to delays in the allotment process. The court found that the allottees who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees. The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
Issues: The court considered the issue of DDA's ability to resile from its office order dated 21. 11. 2002, which stipulates that in cases where DDA has failed to change the address despite communication of the same by the allottee, the allottee is entitled to the flat at the original price and cannot be burdened for the fault of the DDA. The court analyzed various cases where the priority of the registrants matured, and the allotment letters were sent to the wrong address, leading to delays in the allotment process. The court found that the allottees who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the petitioners who promptly brought the mistake to the notice of DDA were not held liable for interest, while those who were negligent in pursuing their rights were required to pay interest. The court also considered the financial burden on DDA and the possibility of more cases of missing priority or claim by allottees. The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
Final Decision: The court directed DDA to verify the change of address for each petitioner and make allotments accordingly, taking into account the rates prevalent at the time of entitlement maturity. The court also directed DDA to consider the financial implications and the possibility of withdrawing the office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
( 1 ) THE present batch of writ petitions require consideration of the issue whether DDA can resile from its office order dated 21. 11. 2002.
( 2 ) CERTAIN backdrop facts which were not a part of pleadings of either party may be noted as per concession made by counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel who appeared for the DDA.
( 3 ) THE said unpleaded facts are that in the year 1979, DDA floated a residential scheme called New Pattern Registration Scheme (hereinafter referred to as "nprs-1979" ).
( 4 ) UNDER the said scheme, DDA sought registration from individuals pertaining to different categories of flats, proposed to be constructed in future. Middle Income Group, lower Income Group and at the bottom janta Category Flats were notified to be constructed by DDA in the future. Within the scheme, separate registration for SC/st persons was also envisaged.
( 5 ) AS per the scheme as originally notified, names of all applicants were to be registered by DDA. As and when flat (s) in a respective category were available in a particular colony, names of all registrants were to be entered in a draw of lots. Whosoever was successful, was to get the flat allotted at the draw in his name.
( 6 ) REGISTRANTS being large in number, I am given to understand that the figure crossed over a lakh, it was creating administrative problems to enter all names, besides causing inconvenience to the registrants who were to scrutinize whether they were found successful at each draw. Accordingly, in the year 1986 dda decided to allot priority numbers to the pending registrants. This meant that DDA took out a computerized draw of all pending registrants in the year 1986. At seriatum, names were culled out at the draw with reference to the registration number. Priority got assigned. Thereafter, as and when flats became available, based on the priority of the registrant, only such number of priorities were fed in a computer as corresponded to the number of flats available. At this draw, specific flat came to be allotted to the registrant.
( 7 ) NRPS-1979 was floated in the year 1979. Priorities got assigned in the year 1986.
( 8 ) THIS allocation of priority to the registrants solved the administrative problem faced by dda which earlier on was entering all the names at each draw of lots. Henceforth, dda would enter a limited number of names based on priority assigned in the year 1986 for determination of specific flat being allotted. This created a problem which is being reflected in the present petitions. The problem which got created was that people who found their names low down in the priority list went into a slumber, they claim that this slumber was induced by DDA. Allotments were taking place at a snail s pace. Those who found their names way down the priority list had no clue whether they would get a flat after a decade or may be two decades. These people were not expected to keep a track each year of what DDA was doing. It was reasonable to expect that these persons would find out the status of their registration, may be every 2nd or 3rd year in the beginning and thereafter depending upon in what manner the list moved, keep track with periodic frequency thereafter.
( 9 ) AS would be noted from individual facts hereunder, barring a stray, most of the writ petitioners who were registered in 1979 found their priority maturing somewhere in the year 1996 to the year 2000 i. e. 15 to 21 years after registration. 10 to 15 years after 1986 when priority was assigned to them.
( 10 ) MOST of the petitioners claim that having applied in 1979, they changed residence. New address was duly furnished to DDA. When their priority matured, DDA entered their names in a draw of lots. Flat allotted to them was offered by and under a demand- cum-allotment letter. DDA was negligent in posting the letter at the old address. Petitioners did not receive the demand-cum- allotment letter. Petitioners claim that they should be allot
