Amit Aggarwal v. Delhi Development Authority

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20. j[2].20 J[2] passed by a learned Single Judge of this Coun in WP(C) No.796/20j 2. The appellant is the grandson of one Sohan I.al who had applied for registration under the New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979 in respect of IJG flats. The said LPA N0.232/2(113 Page I of[4] 2013:DHC:8516-DB L, Sohan Lai had been allotted a flat in 1986. However, he wanted to exchange that flat with a flat in some other colony of his choice, namely, Pitam Pura, Pashchim Vihar or Vikas Puri. That was not acceded to and, therefore, the.said Sohan Lai addressed a letter dated 31.10.1986 to the DDA stating that on account of his ill health and some other unforeseen circumstances, he was not in a position to accept the present offer and therefore requested theDDA to cancel the same while keeping the registration alive for a future draw. Along with the said letter dated 31.10.1986, the said Sohan Lai returned the demand letter dated 17.9.1986 in original in respect of the said flat. Subsequently, by a letter dated 22.2.1986, the DDA informed the said Sohan Lai with regard to the deposit of Rs. 1,113/- as cancellation charges and that his name would be put at the tail end ofthe seniority list.

2. Thereafter, the said Sohan Lai did nothing but waited for his turn for allotment. On 21.11.2001, the said Sohan Lai passed away. His son Vinod Kumar Aggarwal also died on 3.12.2007. l^he present appellant (Amit Aggarwal) is the son of late Vinod Kumar Aggarwal. It is averred that the appellant did not have the documents till 2008 and only in 2009, the appellant filed an application on 2.1.2009 requesting for a transfer of the registration fi-om the name of his grandfather Sohan Lai to his name. That application was ultimately allowed by the DDA and a communication was sent to the appellant on 24.6.2010 informing him that the registration had been transferred in his name. Subsequent thereto, between 28.9.2012 and 4.10.2012, an allotment letter was sent to the appellant informing him about LPA No.232/2013 Page 2 of[4] the allotment of a flat at Lolcnayak Puram. That allotment letter however also required him to pay the charges for the same at the current rates.

3. The whole dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the rates being charged for the flat which was allotted at Lolmayak Puram. It is the case of the appellant that the old rates of 1986 ought to have been charged from the appellant and not the new rates. His plea is that it was the very same registration which his grandfather had obtained which had fructified into the allotment at Loknayak Puram and therefore the rates applicable would be the 1986 rates and not the 2012 rates.

4. The learned Single Judge however did not agree with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and dismissed the writ petition. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant reiterated his contentions and pleas. On the other hand, Mr Rajiv Bansal appearing on behalf of the DDA drew our attention to the fact that when late Sohan Lai had been allotted the flat in 1986, he had sought cancellation of the allotment of his own volition. However, he had requested that the registration be kept alive for a future draw. He submitted that once the earlier allotment was cancelled, the new allotment would, obviously, be done at a subsequent date and the rates applicable would be the rates at which the draw of lots was to be undertaken. He submitted that in the present case, the draw of lots took place in 2012 and therefore the rates applicable in 2012 would apply and not the rates of 1986>

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error. The appellant's LPA No.232/2013 Page 3 of[4] grandfather (Sohan Lai) had on his own sought cancellation of the allotment which was offered to him in 1986 and he was made aware by the DDA that though his registration would be kept alive for a future draw, his name would be put at the tail end of the seniority list. This clearly implied that the draw of lots would be done at some subsequent date. Since the draw of lots was done only in 2012, after the appellant had asked for a transfer of the registration in his name from that of his grandfather's in the year 2009, the applicable rates for the allotment of the flat at Lolmayak Puram would be of 2012. We see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DUl^EZ AHMED, ACJ VIBHU BAKIIRU, J- JULY 15, 2013 pk