JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

1.       The respondent/complainant got himself registered with the petitioner-DDA for allotment of a residential plot in a Scheme called Rohini LIG Scheme. Vie allotment letter dated 29-10-1991, DDA allotted an LIG plot bearing No.62 in Pocket-8, Sector-24 of Rohini to the complainant and he was asked to deposit an amount of Rs.21,229/-. The said amount was duly deposited by the complainant in three installments. However, despite his having deposited the entire land premium possession of the plot was not given to him.

2.       Vide letter dated 24-03-2003 the complainant sent photocopies of his specimen signatures, ration card, etc., to DDA and informed that he had complied with all the requisite formalities. DDA thereupon informed the complainant that it had restored registration for allotment of another plot to him in phase-III or phase-IV of Rohini subject to payment of restoration charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. and further subject to the availability of the plot. The complainant vide his letter dated       16-06-2003 conveyed acceptance for allotment of the alternative plot and also give undertaking to pay the requisite restoration charges. Thereafter plot No.60 in Pocket-II, Block-1 of Sector 16 of Rohini was allotted to the complainant at the rate of Rs.6,224/- per sq.mtr.. However, since the size of this plot was 34 sq. mtr., he was asked to pay premium of the plot at the rate of Rs.18,546/- per sq.mtr. for land measuring 2 sq.mtr.. He was also asked to pay restoration charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. and Rs.100/- towards documentation charges, thereby making a total sum of Rs.2,46,560/-.

3.       The complainant thereupon approached the concerned District Forum, seeking the following reliefs:

(a)     to direct the respondent to re-issue the allotment letter bearing No.F.24(423)/91/LSB(Rohini)15 dated 23-09-2003 to 29-09-2003 after rectifying the same to the extent that the premium of the plot No.60, Pkt.11, Block-1, Sector 16, measuring 34 sq.mtr. in Rohini Residential Scheme be demanded at the old rate at which the plot No.62, Sector-24, Pkt.8, measuring 32 sq.mtr. was allotted to the complainant vide allotment letter dated 29-10-1991 and not to demand any restoration charges as demanded by the respondent;

(b)     to direct the respondent to give benefit of interest on the amount deposited by the complainant and lying with the respondent against the old allotted plot;

(c)     to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant towards a special damages for the loss and injury caused to the complainant by the respondent on account of substantial increase in escalation cost of construction and the harassment, mental pains, agony, fatigue and torture caused to the complainant by the respondent.

4.       DDA vide its letter dated 17-02-2004 asked the complainant to explain why he had failed to pay the amount which it had demanded from him. The complainant informed DDA about the complaint filed by him before the District Forum.

          The District Forum taking the view that since the complainant had failed to deposit the amount of Rs.2,46,500/- as per the allotment letter dated 23-09-2003 and assuming that the allotment had been cancelled, held that DDA was justified in cancelling the allotment made to him.

5.       Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum the complainant approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission noted that while asking the complainant to pay restoration charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. DDA had not asked for premium at the current rates and the only demand made by it was of restoration charges. It was felt by the State Commission that if DDA wanted to charge revised premium of land it was incumbent upon it to say so in the letter whereby the alternative plot was offered by it to the complainant. It was also noticed in this regard that the complainant was not a defaulter in making payment in respect of the plot No.62 in Sector 24 of Rohini. The State Commission also noticed that in fact even during the pendency of the complaint the new plot bearing No.62 in Sector 16 of Rohini had not been cancelled and DDA had only stated that the said plot was liable to be cancelled on account of non-payment of the amounts demanded vide letter dated 23-09-2003/29-09-2003. The State Commission, therefore, allowed the appeal filed by the complainant and directed the petitioner-DDA to allot a plot measuring 34 sq.mtrs. within a period of three months anywhere in Delhi. DDA was directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony and harassment caused to him as well as towards the cost of litigation. It was also held that DDA was at liberty to charge price of extra two meters of land at the same rates which were applicable in respect of old plot at the time of registration of the complainant/appellant with DDA.

6.       Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission the petitioner is before us by way of this revision petition.

7.       The learned counsel for the DDA submits that though the complainant had made payment in respect of the plot No.62 in Pocket 8 Sector 24 of Rohini within the time stipulated in the allotment letter he had not deposited the requisite documents and had not furnished a copy of the challan form to DDA. He also submits that thereafter the complainant changed his address and, therefore, DDA could not serve the letters asking him to submit the documents including the challan form, so that possession could be given to him. In our view, the DDA was not at all justified in cancelling the allotment of plot No.62 in Pocket 8 Sector 24, of Rohini only on account of delay on the part of the complainant in furnishing the documents required for the purpose of taking possession of the said plot. Once DDA had received the premium of the land allotted by it, it was the allottee alone who was suffering on account of not taking possession of the plot allotted to him. DDA was not a sufferer on account of delay in submission of the documents.

8.       This issue came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Asha N. Madnani v. D.D.A 1997 1 AD (Delhi) 385. In that case, the allotment made to the petitioner before the High Court was cancelled for non-submissions of relevant documents by him within the prescribed period of 90 days.

After cancelling the first allotment made to the petitioner, DDA issued a second letter of allotment to him whereby another flat was allotted to him at a higher cost thereby requiring the petitioner to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,10,699.46/-. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashing of second allotment letter and direction to DDA to allot a flat to him at the address which was fixed in the original allotment. Allowing the writ petition, the High Court inter alia held as under:-

“The respondent-DDA has not lost anything by such a technical default on the part of the petitioner inasmuch as price was fully received by the DDA. Merely for the technical deficiency in supplying the documents, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer by paying an additional amount of more than Rs. 2 lacks. (10) A distinction has to be drawn between the consequence flowing from the default in payment by the allottee in accordance with the terms and conditions of allotment and a default merely in furnishing proof of payments and filing of the documents within the prescribed period. The letter of allotment provides for automatic cancellation of the allotment in both the cases. In the case of default in payment of installments automatic cancellation of allotment has to be sustained because of the consequences flowing therefrom. 10.1. Each allotment is part of a composite scheme. By default in payment the working of the scheme is disturbed and the Dda has to rearrange its financial affairs. An allottee defaulting in payment must give way to an aspirant waiting for an allotment and willing to make payment.

10.2. In case of a mere default in filing of the documents (having no material bearing or eligibility or qualification for allotment ) and proof of payments within the prescribed period the considerations are different. Even the respondent-DDA is aware of the payment having been made. It is merely a question of convenience that allottee is required to furnish proof of payment so that collective information as to payments is available at one place and the Dda is net required to scan its records time and again in respect of each allottee. Having made the payments - all and in time - it is primarily the allottee who suffers by his failure to furnish the documents and proof of payments. Execution of lease and delivery of possession to the allottee would be delayed inspite of his having parted with money and the flat lying ready for delivery of possession. Situation may be different if third party interest or any other similar factor has intervened which would render it inequitable or impossible to accommodate the allottee on his original allotment.

10.3.Therefore, the term as to payment as per schedule must be held to be mandatory while the term as to submission of all the relevant documents alongwith proof of payment within the prescribed period should be held to be-directory. (11) For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed. The additional demand raised by the respondent is quashed. The respondent is directed to allot the flat described in the letter of allotment dated 22.9.92 (Annexure-K) at the same disposal cost at which she was previously allotted a similar flat vide letter of allotment dated 23/27.4.90 (Annexure-C).”

9.       Since DDA was not justified in cancelling the allotment of Plot No.62 in Pocket 8, Sector 24 of Rohini, it was not justified even in asking for the restoration charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. What DDA did was that not only it demanded the restoration charges it also revised the land premium and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,99,168/- towards premium of 32 sq. mtrs. of land whereas the same size of plot was allotted to him earlier for a consideration of Rs.21,229/- and he had already paid the entire amount in terms of the demand letter issued by DDA. As noticed by the State Commission, even while offering the alternative plot to the complainant DDA had asked him to give undertaking to pay restoration charges at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. and he was not told that in addition to the restoration charges he would also be required to pay land premium at the rates prevailing on the dates of allotment. The act of the DDA in demanding the land premium at the rates prevailing in the year 2003 was an act of gross high-handedness and patently unfair and unreasonable. In fact, even the demand for the restoration charges was unjustified considering that DDA was not entitled to cancel the allotment of plot No.62 in Pocket 8, Sector 24 of Rohini merely on account of non-submission of the requisite documents. As a result of the high-handedness and arbitrary demand raised by DDA, the complainant could not get possession of the plot for at least more than ten years, despite having already paid the land premium. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find no fault with the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission to the complainant.

10.     Since there is a delay of 29 days in filing the revision petition an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed, however, since we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on merits we need not take a view on the said application. The application seeking condonation of delay as well as the revision petition are dismissed.

          The cost of Rs.10,000/- imposed on DDA vide interim order dated 01-09-2014 shall be deposited by it within three weeks from today.