Sri Sudhir Kumar Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority [Along … on 18 May 2004
Delhi High Court
Sri Sudhir Kumar Yadav vs Delhi Development Authority [Along … on 18 May, 2004
Author: Vikramajit Sen
Bench: Vikramajit Sen
JUDGMENT
Vikramajit Sen, J.
1. The Petitioner has been allotted a Garage in or about September, 1999 for a demanded consideration of approximately Rs. 53,000/-. This demand was challenged on the grounds that since the Petitioner had applied for the allotment in 1987, the charges prevailing at the time of the application should be charged. The DDA had carried out a fresh consideration of the matter and the demand has been reduced to approximately Rs.41,000/-, with interest. The cancellation of the allotment of the garage because of non-payment of the demanded amounts has been recalled and the allotment has been restored. The Petitioners are, therefore, enjoying the use of the garage. There has been no appearance on their behalf consecutively on the last four hearings.
2. The controversy is no longer res integra. In Delhi Development Authority Versus Pushpendra Kumar Jain, , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had laid down that mere drawl of lots does not vest any indefeasible rights in the allottees for allotment at a price obtaining on the date of the drawl of lots. It has further been observed that since the right to the property in question arises only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of such communication is applicable. When this dicta is applied to the present case, it leave no room for debate that the Petitioners demand that the rates existing in 1987 alone are claimable or chargeable by the DDA is without merit.
3. The Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sheelawanti and another v. DDA and another, , has held that in respect of the housing scheme of the DDA the pricing of flats including escalation of cost of land etc. does not call for the interference of this Court since the transaction is purely contractual. This view has also been followed by different Division Bench of this Court in J.P. Gupta Versus DDA, and DDA Self Finance Flats owners Society (Regd.) and others v. Union of India and others, .
4. In Premji Bhai Parmar and others v. Delhi Development Authority and others, , the Hon’ble Supreme Court had also cautioned against jurial interference in obligations voluntarily incurred touching upon state action in the contractual field.
5. In the present Petitions, Respondents have not acted in a discriminatory manner and the impugned decisions pertain to the realm of contract. This Court ought not to interfere in such transactions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The Petitions are dismissed.