Y K. Sabharwal, J.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed forquashing of demand/allotment letter dated 12th/ 13/03/1991 by whichl I G Flat No. C-6, 141, Ground Floor, Lawrence Road, New Delhi, was allotted to him and a demand in the sum of Rs. 1,70,800. 00 was made. The petitionerhas also sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to chargeanything more than Rs. 13. 200. 00 for the said flat and in any case not more thanrs 18 000?- as per the terms and conditions of Registration Scheme on Newpattern. The case of petitioner is that in the year 1973 similar flats wereallotted by DDA for Rs. 13,200. 00. The petitioner got himself registered in theyear 1980 under 1979 Scheme and as such the rate at which allotment was madein the year 1973 is not relevant.

( 2 ) THE amount of Rs. 18,000. 00 for LIG flats as given in 1979 Schemewas tentative. The respondent-DDA in answer to show cause has explainedthat the amount of Rs. 1,70,800. 00 has been worked out on no profit No lossbasis . The petitioner has not pleaded in the writ petition that in working outthe sum of Rs. 1,70,800. 00 the respondents have taken into consideration extraneous matters. The reliance of petitioner upon D. D. A. (Disposal of Developednazulland) Rules, 1981 is misconceived as, in our opinion, the said rules haveno applicability in considering the fixation of prices of the flats. Further, thequestion of fixation of the price of the flat, under the facts and circumstancesof the present case, cannot be gone into in exercise of power under Article 226of the Constitution of India and this aspect is covered by the judgment of thesupreme Court in Bareilly Development Authority and Am. v. Ajai Pal Singh andors. , Judgment Today 1989 (1) 368 as also by the Division Bench judgment ofthis Court in C. W. 2265 of 1991 Veena Saxena v. D. D. A. decided on 1 5/01/1992.

( 3 ) THE petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document