The DDA cannot demand a price for flats higher than the estimated cost indicated in the demand-cum-allocation letters, and cannot include equalisation charges, transfer charges, and interest thereon in the cost of flats.

( 1 ) AFTER the Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheelawanti and Am. v. DDA and Am. , AIR 1995 Delhi 212=57 (1995) DLT 801 (FB), we for once had thought that litigation with regard to the pricing of flats being constructed by the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA) under its various schemes will come to an end but that was not to be and this is yet another batch of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein registrants/allottees under 5th Self Financing Housing Registration Scheme, 1982 again assail the price of flats being demanded from them by the DDA.

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved is common in all the matters, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. To appreciate the controversy, we shall treat the facts in Civil Writ Petition No. 858/94 as illustrative.

( 3 ) LIKE its earlier self financing schemes, seeking financial participation of the intending purchasers during the process of construction of flats, the DDA announced its 5th such scheme and the petitioners herein got themselves registered under the scheme by depositing the prescribed amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 for category III and Rs. 10,000. 00 for category in flats. The terms and conditions, including the mode for payment of cost of flat, in instalments at regular intervals, were enumerated in the brochure. Clause II of the scheme, relevant for these cases, reads as follows :

"the estimated cost of flats offered for each scheme would be announced from time-to-time whenever specific schemes have been prepared taking into consid- eration the location of each scheme, specifications and design of flats, cost of construction prevailing at the time of the execution of the scheme, fluctuations in other cost factors, etc. "

( 4 ) SOME time in July, 1990, the petitioners received demand-cum-allocation letters from the DDA informing them that they have been declared successful for allocation of flat under the scheme. The letters contained details of locality, flat number, estimated cost of the flat and terms of payment. The estimated cost of flat under Category H was Rs. 3,89,200. 00 and for Category III it was Rs. 5,01,700. 00. The petitioners claim to have paid 90% of the said estimated cost in instalments in terms of these letters. In November, 1993 the petitioners received demand letters against 5th and final instalment, wherein the final price of flats demanded under Category II ranged between Rs. 5,78,000. 00 and Rs. 6,15,000. 00 and under Category III it ranged between 7,60,000. 00 and 8,25,000. 00. The petitioners protested against the said enhancement of cost of flats and in their representations they also sought details of the actual costing of the flats. Being unsuccessful, the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

( 5 ) THE main grievance of the petitioners [as in Sheelawanti s case (supra)] is that instead of realising the price quoted in the demand-cum-allocation letters, the DDA has now issued demand letters requiring them to pay amounts much in excess of the estimated cost indicated earlier, which amounts are highly exorbitant and arbitrary. They seek an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the demands made by the DDA with a further direction to the DDA to deliver possession of their respective flats allotted to them by accepting the balance 10% of the estimated cost as conveyed to them in July, 1990.

( 6 ) THE petitioners challenged the fresh costing of flats as being illegal and arbitrary, inter alia, on the grounds that: (i) the land being already available with the DDA and its cost having been already included in the estimated cost reflected in the demand-cum- allocation letter and the cost of construction in three years having not gone up beyond 30%, astronomical hike in the final cost, is without any basis; (ii) the DDA has failed to disclose the details of actual cost; and (iii) the DDA is bound by the estimates of cost given by it in the letter of allocation and must adhere to