KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.

1. The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking directions for quashing the decision of the respondent in allotting LIG Flat No. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector11, Rohini, Delhi to the petitioner at almost double the price of earlier flat being illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust and in violation of the Rules, Regulations and policy of equity, justice and good conscience and also to issue writ commanding the respondent to forthwith issue to the petitioner a fresh demand letter in respect of LIG Flat No. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi at the same cost at which the earlier flat was allotted to her in 1991 after adjusting the amount already paid by her after adding interest thereupon @ 12% pa for 10 years.

The facts and circumstances of the case, which are relevant for deciding the present petition, are as follows:

In the year 1979, the DDA, respondent herein, under the Delhi Development (Management & Disposal of Housing Estates) regulations, 1968 announced a scheme for allotment of DDA flats to the citizens of the country, namely, the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner applied for and was registered under the aforesaid scheme for the allotment of an LIG flat. The petitioner waited for the allotment and after a long wait of 12 years, in the draw held on 15.02.1991, the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing no. 4, First Floor, Pocket-6, Block-A, Sector16, Rohini, Delhi at a total disposal cost of Rs. 1,64,200/- on hire purchase basis and an allotment cum demand letter dated 08.08.1991 was issued to the petitioner in this regard. As the allotment was on hire purchase basis, the petitioner was required to pay Rs. 56,722/-as the initial deposit on or before 07.09.1991 and the balance amount was to be paid in the form of monthly installments of Rs. 1424.12/-.

Mr. R.K. Saini counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner made payment of initial deposit on 07.09.1991 and made payments of some installments also. The counsel submitted that the possession letter of the said flat was issued to the petitioner on 27.05.1994 and thereafter, the petitioner contacted the Junior Engineer at the site to take the possession of the said flat and it was then to her utter shock and surprise, she came to know that the said flat already stood allotted to another person who had already taken the possession of the said flat, thus, the matter became a case of double allotment of the same flat. The counsel urged that the said position was immediately brought to the notice of the concerned officials and the petitioner requested them to allot her another flat at the same cost at the earliest. The counsel contended that the petitioner also met the higher officials of the respondent DDA, who also realized the mistake of DDA in allotting the aforesaid flat to the petitioner, which was a double allotment. The counsel further contended that the petitioner also appeared in a number of public hearings from 1994 to May 2001 and also made various representations to the DDA. The counsel also submitted that ultimately after the representation dated 31.05.2001, the DDA issued allotment-cum-demand letter dated 01.06.2001 in respect of an alternative flat bearing no. 86, First Floor, Group-6, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi, to the petitioner, in which disposal cost of the flat was shown to be Rs. 1,91,100/- (1,55,900/- + 35,200/-) and an amount of Rs. 1,36,557/- was demanded towards installments already due w.e.f. September 1992 till April 2001 and a further sum of Rs. 67,306/- was demanded towards interest due upon the aforesaid installments and over that a sum of Rs. 85,348/- was demanded as amount due on 65 installments @ Rs. 1313.05/- pm and as such an amount of Rs. 2,89,211/- (136557 + 67306+ 85348) was determined as amount payable by the petitioner. The counsel urged that the allotment dated 01.06.2001 was made to the petitioner in lieu of the earlier allotment, which was a do

Click Here to Read the rest of this document