SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Del) 114

D.K.JAIN, Y.K.SABHARWAL
ABHIMANYU KUMAR SETHI – Appellant
Versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.R.GUPTA, N.K.KAUL

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 p


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top