JUDGMENT
M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.
(1) By this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner seeks quashing the letter of allotment dated 5.2.1991, received by him from the respondent-DDA, offering allotment of flat No. 10 (ground floor) Rohini, New Delhi at the cost of Rs. 2,60,438.67. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to allot the said flat at the rates prevailing on 15.12.1989, when the flat No. 53, Block B, Pocket 11, Sector 18, (second floor), Rohini, New Delhi was allotted to him.
(2) The respondent-DDA prepared and published a scheme called “Registration Scheme of New Pattern 1979 of intending purchasers of flats to be constructed by DDA” providing the procedure for allotment of flats constructed by it. The petitioner had got registered himself for allotment of a flat under the said scheme. The cost of a flat under the scheme was fixed at Rs. 42,000.00 . A draw was held on 15.12.1989 and vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 14.2.1990 a flat bearing No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-11, Sector 18, (2nd floor), Rohini, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner. (Annexure D). The said letter of allotment also indicated that the total cost of the flat which was payable was Rs. 1,54,700.00 . On 2.2.1990, the petitioner approached the respondent with a request to change allotment of flat from 2nd floor to the ground floor on account of his wife’s illness. (Annexure E). The petitioner did not get any response from the respondent on the said representation. On 5.4.1990, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,45,986.17 as demanded by the respondent towards the disposal cost of the flat including the premium of land of Rs. 3300.00 and other charges. (Annexure F). However, in a draw held on 3.7.1990, the petitioner was allotted a flat-bearing number 10, Block-B, Pocket-7, Sector 17, Rohini (ground floor). The Allotment cur demand letter was issued to the petitioner requiring him to deposit Rs. 2,60,438.67 to wards the cost of flat within 15 days. (Annexure 1). The petitioner being aggrieved by the escalation amount of Rs. 2,60,438.67 has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(3) On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent-DDA, it is asserted that the Dda maintains a list of eligible persons registered under particular scheme for allotment of flats. A sand when flats areavailable,allotmentofthesame is made, by draw of lots on the basis of the said list and premium is charged on the basis of the predetermined rates prevailing on the date of allotment. Predetermined rates for allotment of flats, it is contended, are fixed on ‘no-profit no loss’ basis taking into account, inter alia, the cost of acquisition of land, cost of development of land and cost of construction. It is asserted that an allottee is liable to pay premium at the pre-determined rates prevailing at the time when a specific flat is allotted to him. It is also contended that it was made clear in brochure of the scheme that the estimated price mentioned therein is illustrative and is subject to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies of layout and cost of construction etc. Further, it is contended that the question of costing of flats stands concluded by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheelavanti v. Dda, and cannot be reagitated in this writ petition.
(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that since the flat No. 10, Block 23, Pocket-7 (Ground floor). Sector 18, Rohini was allotted to the petitioner in lieu of flat No. 53, Block-B Pocket-11 (Second floor), Rohini, the respondent is not entitled to demand cost of flat at the rate prevailing on the date of allotment of the flat No. 10, Block-B, Pocket 7, Sector 12, Rohini, Here it is pertinent to mention that in Dda v. PushpendraKumarJain,MR 1995 S.C. I, Apex Court had occasion to consider the dispute arising out of this very scheme, i.e., RSNP-1979. Their Lordships have laid down the following principles :
(I)anallottee does not obtain a vested right of allotment on a draw of lots. The system of drawing of lots is only a mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee i.e., it is a process of selection. It is not allotment by itself. Mere identification or selection of allottee does not clothe the person selected with the legal right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of drawl of lots;
(II)since the right to flat arise only on the communication of the letter of allotment, the price or rate prevailing on the date of communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the scheme;
(III)the scheme does not prescribe die period within which allotment has to be communicated from the date of drawl of lots. It has at course to be done within a reasonable period.
(5) Similar dispute under the very scheme was also agitated before a Full Bench of this Court in Sheelavanti v. Dda, and the Full Bench laid down the following principles :
(I)This Court can only examine whether the pricing of flats demanded by the Dda for different categories of allottees is whimsical or arbitrary;
(II)Merely because the method of valuation suggested by the petitioner would be more fairer or logical, the method or basis adopted by the Dda cannot be struck down as arbitrary or whimsical.
(III)In view of the terms and conditions of the scheme it cannot be said that pricing is one time process and the Dda having fixed in die brochure some price could not revise it. Obviously it is a continuing process.
(IV)The Dda has a responsibility to act fairly and reasonably while fixing the price for sale of land, houses or flats belonging to it. It cannot be said that the Dda is obliged to sell them at a price that may result in loss to it or at a price which does not contain any profit element.
(6) In Bareilly Development Authority v. Ajay Pal Singh, , it was held by the Apex Court that : “When the contract entered into by the State is non-statutory and purely contractual the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter-se. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that no writer order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple.”
(7) It has to borne in mind that the scheme floated by the respondent-DDA is a non-statutory Scheme. The letter of allotment issued by the Dda is an offer which the allottee may or may not accept. If he accepts, then a concluded contract comes into existence and the allottee is bound by the terms contained in the letter of allotment including those relating to payment and delivery of possession. It is an admitted position that in a draw held on 15.12.1989, the flat No. 53, Block-B, Pocket- 11, (2nd floor) was allotted to the petitioner vide allotment-cum-demand letter Annexure-D.By that letter of allotment the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs. 1,54,700.00 towards disposal cost of the flat. On 2.2.1990 the petitioner requested for a change from 2nd floor to the ground floor on account of his wife’s illness and on getting no immediate response from the respondent in this regard, he deposited the amount as demanded by the DDA. Thus, on such payment made in accordance with the terms of the scheme and the letter of allotment, a concluded contract had come into existence and the Dda was under obligation to hand over possession of the flat No. 53, Block-B, Pocket-11, Sector-18 (2nd floor) to the petitioner. However, it appears that on a consideration of the petitioner’s representation dated 2.2.1990, the respondent-DDA took a sympathetic view on humanitarian ground by agreeing to include the petitioner’s name in the next draw of lots for allotment of a flat at ground floor. Consequently, in a draw held on 3.7.1990, the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing No. 10, Block-B, Pocket-7, Sector 17, Rohini (Ground floor) vide allotment-cum-demand letter dated 5.2.1991. By that letter of allotment, the petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 2,60,438.67 towards the disposal cost of the flat. Thus, the allotment dated 5.2.1991 was a fresh allotment of flat or fresh offer for all intent and purposes and the petitioner was at liberty either to accept the offer or refuse it. In a transaction for sale of immovable property, among other material terms, the price/premium should be settled to conclude a valid and binding contract between the parties. Where the Dda enters into such atransaction,IT is bound to charge premium/price only at the predetermined rates in force on the date of issue of the letter of allotment. If in case the petitioner is not willing to take or accept the allotment at such rate, it is always open to him to decline the allotment.
(8) In my opinion, the issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition stands fully covered by a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sheelavanti’s case (supra) and the decision rendered by the Apex .Court in Dda v. Pushpendra Kumar Jain’s case (supra) and nothing survives for adjudication.
(9) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.