( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 6/03/2000 whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking direction to the respondent to allot a flat to the appellant at the rates prevalent. in the year 1994 was rejected. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows :-

IN the year 1979 the appellant was registered with the delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA ) for allotment of a LIG Flat under the New Pattern Registration scheme, 1979 (for short the Scheme of 1979 ). The appellant was given priority number 28509. In November 1988, the DDA announced a scheme called "awas Sakar Yojna . According to the Awas Sakar Yojna, the registrants of MIG and LIG with priority numbers beyond 10,000 wiling to form co-operative group housing societies were to be allotted land on priority basis so that they could take up the.- construction of flats themselves. The appellant gave her willingness to be included in the Awas Sakar Yojna. Under the Awas Sakar yojna, co-operative societies were formed and the Registrar, cooperative Societies, was approached for seeking registration of nine societies only. The appellant was not a member of any of the nine societies. On 7/10/1992, the awas Sakar Yojna was scrapped. It is not disputed that the registrants who opted for the Awas Sakar Yojna and had not received the benefit under it stood automatically reverted to the scheme of 1979 under which they were originally registered. It appears that despite the fact that registration of the appellant stood reverted to the original scheme of 1979 , her name was not. put. In the draw of lots which was held on 20/01/1994, even though persons with priority number a above her were included in it. In other words, while the appellant was ignored, names of her juniors figured in the draw of lots. Subsequently, when the appellant came to know about the mistake of the DDA, she filed a representation on 15/09/1998. The representation did not have the desired effect with the result the appellant filed a writ petition on 24/11/1999 in this Court to ventilate her grievance. The writ petition, however, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge has filed the instant Letters Patent Appeal.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the DDA filed a counter-affidavit in which it was stated that the name of the appellant had since been considered for allotment of a LIG flat under the scheme of 1979 and she has been allotted Flat No. 73, Ground Floor, block A, Sector 2, Rohini, pursuant to computer draw held on 3/12/1999. It may also be pointed out that the rate at which the allotment was made to the appellant was much higher than the one which was prevalent in the year 1994. The rates prevailing in 1994 were charged from the persons who were registered under the Scheme of 1979 after the appellant was registered and whose names were included in the draw of lots held on January 20, 1. 994. The parties are not at variance on this aspect of the matter. There is also no denial of the fact that the name of the appellant ought to have been included in the draw of lots held on 20/01/1994 in consonance with her priority position. The only justification for not allotting the flat as per the rate prevalent in the. year 1994 is that the mistake was not detected within one year of the draw of lots held on 20/01/1994 in accordance with the policy dated 25/05/1995 of the D. D. A. The relevant part of the policy read as under :-

( 4 ) THE aforesaid policy has to be read in a rational manner. A registrant in whose case, allotment, was not made due to non -. inclusion) of his/her name in the draw of lots due to the mistake of the DDA though as per the priority position his/her name ought to have- been included, cannot be asked to pay more that what was paid by those who were regi