Judgment:
R.L. Gupta, J.
(1) This petition is filed for seeking issuance of writ of certiorari and/or mandamus or any other writ, direction or order for quashing an arbitrary demand raised by Delhi Development Authority from the petitioner in respect of Flat No.22, First floor in Sector Iii, Pocket 23, Rohini under Mig category and for a direction to Dda to charge a reasonable rate of interest on the sale price.
(2) The allegations are that the Dda had introduced 'Registration Scheme on new Pattern 1979' of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by the Dda in the year 1979. The petitioner got herself registered under the scheme and deposited Rs.4500.00 on 13.10.1979, which amount was adjustable towards the price of the flat. The Dda issued a Brochure, Annexure-III under the Scheme according to which the price of the Mig flat was tentatively shown at Rs.42,000.00 . 112 flats were accordingly constructed in Pocket-23 and completed in 1987. The petitioner, however, was un-successful in the draw of lots held in the years 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. She, however, succeeded in the draw of lots on 18.2.1991. But she was asked to pay Rs.3.65,300.00 in all. Many of the persons who were allotted similar flats in 1987 were asked to deposit a sum of Rs.l,50,194/50 in all as is clear from Annexurc-IV. which is the allotment letter in respect of Smt.G.Rohini Sundram, and Annexure-V in favor of Shri Ram Lal Bhandari.
(3) The stand of the Dda in the counter affidavit is that the increase in the price of the flat allotted to the petitioner is due to increase of price in construction, building material and labour etc. and that the same amount had been correctly charged from the petitioner on No Profit, No loss basis. The allegation that flat allotted to the petitioner was also constructed in 1987, stands admitted in the counter affidavit.
(4) We have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully considered the controversy. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.
(5) Similar question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kunmar Behal & others v. Union of India and others 1993 (27) Ddr J 82 Delhi Law Times 153. That case also pertained to the registration Scheme of 1979 and allotment of the petitioners in that case also came in 1991 as in the present case. Repelling the contentions of the Dda, it was observed in that case. that the revision of the land rate/land premium from Rs.62.00 per Sq.mtr. to Rs.930.00 per Sq.mtr. materially affected the cost of the flat of the registrants of 1979 without any notice to the registrants. The Dda did not even call the registrants who were wailing since 1979 that it was revising the land premium to such extent and whether they will be still interested in the Scheme or not. thereforee the unilateral revision of the land rate/land premium was held arbitrary and un-reasonable. In this case also Dda is bound- by the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this Court. After considering all the relevant aspects which could affect the increase of price of flats, it was ultimately observed in para-30 of the judgment at page 167, (at page 94 of Drj para 35) that the petitioners should be required to pay four and a half times the price of the flat as was mentioned in the 1979 scheme, subject to further direction as may be given by the Court. A direction was also issued to Dda to constitute an Expert Committee to go into the costing of these flats and if the Expert Committee after working out the cost on the basis of actual cost of construction spent by Dda works out the cost to be more than the price that has been provisionally fixed, Dda was required to give intimation of such revised cost to the petitioners who within one month from the date of intimation shall pay the same to the DDA.
(6) Following the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench of this Court, we quash the impugned demand letter and direct that the Dda shall issue fresh demand letter to the petitioner in accordance with the above directions and on her depositing tentatively Rs. 1,89.000.00 after adjusting the amount already deposited by her, the Dda will hand over possession of the flat to her. The petitioner will be liable to pay the revised demand, if and when received, as per the recommendations of the Expert Committee.
(7) The petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent shall be liable to pay costs to the petitioner which is quantified atRs.2,000.00 .