Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 881
141 (2007) DELHI LAW TIMES 769
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.
SANTOSH BHA T – Petitioner
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Respondent
WP(C) 12752/2006 and CM No. 9839 of 2006
Decided on : 27.4.2007
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms. Amrit K. Oberoi, Advocntc.
Headnote:
DDA - Allotment of Flat - Self Finance Scheme, 1982 - SFS - [Self Finance Scheme, 1982] - [Section 10(1) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957] - [Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005] - The court discussed the petitioner's request for waiver of interest, the DDA's demand for payment, and the relevant legal provisions. The court considered the DDA's policy, the reasonableness of interest charges, and the delay in the DDA's decision-making process. The court directed the DDA to charge the petitioner only the cost plus interest worked out on 22.12.2004 and not to charge any further interest or additional amount towards the cost of the flat beyond this amount.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the quashing of a letter issued by the respondent DDA informing her that her request for allotment of a flat with waiver of interest could be considered only if she agreed to pay old cost plus interest plus restoration charges or current cost, whichever is higher. The petitioner challenged this demand and sought a direction that the DDA was not entitled to charge anything more than the actual costs of construction or the price in which the flats were allotted to the allottees in the neighbourhood. The court noted the petitioner's request for waiver of interest, the subsequent letters and demands from the DDA, and the legal submissions made by both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the DDA's decision to charge interest and restoration charges was not arbitrary, considering the policy and the previous court order leaving the decision entirely to the DDA. However, the court found that the DDA had taken an unconscionably long time to come to a definite conclusion and directed the DDA to charge the petitioner only the cost plus interest worked out on 22.12.2004 and not to charge any further interest or additional amount towards the cost of the flat beyond this amount.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's request for waiver of interest, the reasonableness of the DDA's demand for payment, and the delay in the DDA's decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DDA's decision to charge interest and restoration charges was not arbitrary, but the DDA had taken an unconscionably long time to come to a definite conclusion. The court directed the DDA to charge the petitioner only the cost plus interest worked out on 22.12.2004 and not to charge any further interest or additional amount towards the cost of the flat beyond this amount.
Final Decision: The court directed the DDA to charge the petitioner only the cost plus interest worked out on 22.12.2004 and not to charge any further interest or additional amount towards the cost of the flat beyond this amount. The petitioner was also directed to pay the balance amount to the DDA within a specified period and upon completion of documentation, the petitioner would be put in possession of the flat.
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.-The petitioner seeks the quashing of a letter dated 8.8.2005 issued by the respondent Delhi Development Authority (DDA) by which the petitioner was informed that her request for allotment of a flat with waiver of interest could be considered only if she gave consent for getting it at old cost plus interest plus restoration charges or current cost whichever is higher. It also challenges a the demand letter dated 16.3.2006 calling upon her to pay the old cost plus interest plus restoration charges in the sum of Rs. 25,50,407, for the allotment of the flat in question.
Background Facts
2. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are that the petitioner was registered with the DDA under its Self Finance Scheme, 1982 (SFS).
Initially the registration was in the name of the petitioners brother. In the draw held pursuant to the applications invited in the month of October November 1987, the allotment did not mature. Thereafter in 1990, the DDA offered flats in various localities including Sarita Vihar.
3. The petitioner states that due to disturbances in Kashmir, she was forced to shift to Delhi along with her family members. On 30.5.1991 she applied to the DDA for transferring the registration in her name. She was informed on 9.8.1991 that the registration stood transferred in her name.
4. Towards the end of December, 1992 the DDA announced a scheme offering ready built flats in Sarita Vihar. On 8.1.1993 the petitioner applied for allotment of a flat under this scheme. A draw of lots was held on 23.3.1993. By a letter dated 26.3.1993/31.3.1993 the DDA informed the petitioner that she has been allotted a ready built flat in Sarita Vihar in Pocket E, IIlrd Floor under Category II and the net amount payable by the petitioner was Rs. 6,19,960.
5. Contending that the flat in question was a left out flat from earlier schemes which was offered to Rs. 2.65 lacs and that the DDA was not justified in demand a sum of Rs. 6.40 lacs, the petitioner challenged this demand by filing Writ Petition (C) No. 2995 of 1993 in this Court. The prayer in the petition was for a direction that the DDA was not entitled to charge" anything more than actual costs of construction, or at least the price in which the flats were allotted to the allottees in the neighbourhood."
, 6. The said writ petition was disposed of on 20.7.2004, i.e. 11 years after the writ petition was filed. The Court noted the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner that "she has instructions not to press the writ petition on merits provided directions are issued to the DDA not to charge interest from the petitioner." In para 10 of the judgment the Court observed that "since Counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition on merits, , I need not adjudicate on the claim of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed." The Court was not inclined to entertain the plea for
waiver of interest. Accordingly, the Court concluded the judgment as under:
"Since Counsel for the petitioner made a request that interest be waived, which request has been declined by me, clarify that this would not preclude the competent authority to sympathetically consider, on the administrative side, request if any made by the petitioner to waive interest on charge interest at a lesser rate."
7. On the very date of the above judgment, i.e., 20.7.2004, the petitioner wrote to the DDA seeking waiver of interest.
She sent reminders on 28.3.2005, 28.5.2005 and 15.6.2005. Thereafter, she received the first impugned letter dated 8.8.2005 stating that her request would be considered only she agreed to pay old cost plus interest plus restoration charges or current cost whichever is higher. She replied on 18.8.2005 agreeing to this request.
8. Nevertheless, the petitioner then kept writing to the DDA reiterating her request for waiver of interest. On 16.3.2006 the petitioner was issued the second impugned letter acceding to her request for restoration of flat No. 238, Po
