DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No.727/2008

Sh. Ravi Kant Kalia

RZ 181, F-1 Block

Mahavir Enclave,

Near Palam Village

New Delhi-110045                                                         ….Complainant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority

through its Vice-Chairman

Vikas Sadan, I.N.A.

New Delhi                                                                  ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution          : 04.11.08                                                  Date of Order        : 28.09.16

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member                                 

O R D E R

Briefly stated the case of Complainant in one page hand written complaint is that he had applied in Rohini Residential Scheme and deposited Rs.5,000/- on 24.03.1980 with the OP vide receipt No.00886 and he was allotted a priority No. 11923 for MIG plot 60 sq. meter. He sent a letter to the OP but no satisfactory reply was received from the OP DDA. He retired from the defence service on 31.07.08 but till date he was not allotted a plot by the OP. Complainant has prayed that OP be directed to allot 60 sq. meter plot to him.

OP in the written statement has inter-alia stated that DDA had  launched a Rohini Residential Scheme, 1981 for the general public  for allotment of plots to the categories of Janta, LIG and MIG depending upon the income as per brochure. The Complainant vide application No.30442 had got himself registered for the allotment of the MIG plot. Accordingly, the Complainant was assigned a priority No.11923 against his application No.30442. He was considered for allotment in various draws held from time to time prior to 1989 but was not successful. As per the computerized draw held in 1989 the priority list of all the categories i.e. Janta, LIG and MIG were prepared separately under Rohini Residential Scheme-1981. The priority number of MIG category under Rohini Residential Scheme-1981 was covered upto 9376. As and when the priority No.11923 is matured for allotment he would be considered for allotment of plot measuring 60 sq. meter as per policy. Hence, the Complainant’s prayer is false, frivolous, misleading and against the provisions of law. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with an exemplary costs.

Replication is in the form of “Subject:- Request for Allotment of Plot in Rohini Residential Scheme vide application No.30442 & Priority No.11923 for MIG Plot in 1981.” Para No.4 reads as under:-

“4      DDA has raised the price of land manifold for delay for which the DDA is responsible. So, therefore I requested that price may be charged as per rate declared in 1981. In this context Hon’ble High Court has directed DDA in his judgment on dated 20-05-2007 & 24-08-08 that the allotment may be made in old rate.”

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. S. S. Gill, Director (RL) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.

We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.

During the proceedings dated 17.09.15 this Forum has passed the following order:-

“Case No.727/08

17.9.2015

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. P. K. Aggarwal, Adv., Proxy Counsel for OP.

          According to the Complainant, possession of plot No.37, Measuring 60 Sq. Mtrs in Block A, Pocket No.3, Sector No.28 of the Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi has been handed over to him on 31-8-15 vide possession slip No.F.16(4151)2012/RHN/DDA/507 dated 21.8.15 and letter No.F.16(4151) 2012/RHN/DDA/507 dated 21.8.15.

          Now according to him, the complaint now remains for deciding the following two points:

(1)      As to the rate on which the plot should have been allotted to the Complainant,

(2)      Award of interest @ 7% p.a. on the delayed possession of the plot.

To come upon 04.2.2016 fro consideration of these points.

   Sd/-                                                                            Sd/-

(Member)                                                              (President)”

It is clear that the Complainant in his complaint has prayed that OP be directed to allot 60 sq. mtrs. plot to him. The Complainant’s priority No. was 11923. The OP has already allotted the plot as per his priority No.11923.  He has been allotted the plot on 21.08.15 and he has received possession thereof on 31.08.15. Hence, the prayer sought by the Complainant has already been complied with by the OP. Therefore, the above two issues are not related in this case. Question of over-pricing cannot be looked into the present complaint. Complainant has not filed copy of any such orders dated 25.05.07 and 24.04.08 of the Hon’ble High Court in which it has been held that the allotment be made at old rates. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 28.09.2016.