JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. This petition was taken up for hearing on 21.8.2006. It was listed in the category of regular hearing matters. The Respondents were unrepresented. Counsel for the Petitioner was heard and orders were reserved on that date.
2. By these writ proceedings, quashing orders have been sought for setting aside an allotment letter, in respect of a flat, so far as it seeks enhanced cost of Rs. 3,30,900/-; consequential directions to pay interest for two different periods have been sought. A demand made by the Respondent Delhi Development Authority (hereafter called as the “DDA”) for Rs. 1,91,456/36, by its letter dated 7.4.1997 has also been challenged.
3. The Petitioner’s husband Shri. S.B.Sharma applied and secured a registration in the special housing scheme for retired and retiring public servants, formulated by DDA, on 13.9.1985. After registration apparently the DDA intimated, on 8.12.86 that such registrants ought to apply for joint ownership along with their spouse and cautioned that if this step were not taken, the registration would be cancelled. It is averred that on 10.2.87 an application was submitted by the Petitioner and her husband for inclusion of the former for co-registrant. The Petitioner’s husband died on 23.3.87. She applied to DDA on 5.4.89 for transfer of the registration in her name. Almost at that time she received a letter of allotment, of a flat at Pitampura, in favor of her deceased husband. The disposal cost of the flat, allotted in pocket GH-9, Paschim Vihar was Rs.1,79,900/-. An initial deposit of Rs.77,647.14 on or before 5.7.89 was demanded; the demand cum allotment letter reflected the previous deposit of Rs. 12,000/- with interest accrued on it. It is averred that the amount was deposited in time; a copy of the challan bearing the DDA’s stamp dated 5.7.89 is on record. After issuance of the demand-cum allotment letter in April 1989, a revised allotment letter was issued on 29.6.89-3.7.89 for the same flat ; the disposal flat indicated was Rs.1,63,700/- and the revised initial deposit sought for was Rs. 69,313.89. The Petitioner had already deposited the amount of Rs. 77,647.14 on 5.7.89. As per the second allotment letter monthly Installments were to be paid on or after 1.9.91.
4. The Petitioner avers that neither possession was handed over nor was any action taken by the DDA; it wrote to her only on 30.8.90 intimating that the registration was transferred in her name. She represented to the authorities claiming that amount had been paid prior to the transfer and that steps ought to be taken to hand over possession. The materials on record disclose correspondence during the period 1990-93. It appears that the flat allotted was given to somebody else during the interregnum and that the DDA accepted her request; it issued a fresh allotment letter in Phase-II, Pocket C, Jhilmil Colony. As per this allotment letter dated 17.3.93 the disposal cost of the flat was Rs.3,30,900/-. The DDA claimed that initial deposit of Rs.1,58,800/-; it showed the amount deposited to be Rs.4,500/- on 30.9.85, ignoring the previous record of deposit of Rs. 12,000/- and interest accrued on it. As per the earlier allotment letters, the amount deposited was reflected as Rs. 12,000/- and the Petitioner had already paid Rs.77,647.14 on 5.7.89.
5. On 16.4.93 the Petitioner protested that the claim for Rs.3,30,900/- was wrongly made; she demanded interest at 18% on the amount of Rs.82,808.5, with effect from 4.7.89. She paid a sum of Rs.66,000/- on account of the balance amount payable as per his own calculations on the basis of original disposal cost of Rs. 1,63,700/-. She continued to correspond with the DDA between 1993 and 1995 stating that the entire disposal cost had been paid. Eventually, on 5.8.95 possession of the flat at Jhilmil was handed over to her after verifying that the sums of Rs.77,647.14 and Rs.66,000/- had been paid by her to the DDA. It appears that the Petitioner did not make any further payment towards Installments on the footing that the full cost of the flat as per the original disposal cost at Paschim Vihar had been deposited/paid to the DDA. It is alleged that on the other hand the DDA is liable to pay interest for delay in handling over possession.
6. On 7.4.97 a writ of demand under Section 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, was issued to the Petitioner claiming that arrears to the tune of Rs.1,91,456.36 being 35 unpaid Installments (aggregating Rs.1,10,481/-) and penalty on such belated Installments up to March, 1996 (total in Rs. 80,975.36) were outstanding. The Petitioner replied on 24.4.97 disclosing that the original disposal cost claimed was Rs.1,63,700/- of which the total amount deposited in 1989 was itself Rs.81,850/-, i.e the entire amount including the initial deposit had been paid. In spite of her request of transfer of registration no action was taken and the allotment was cancelled. After much persuation another flat was allotted in Jhilmil but at an enhanced cost. She had however deposited the entire balance of the disposal cost as per the original allotment but was nevertheless denied possession. In these circumstances it was claimed that no amounts were payable to the DDA and the writ of demand was without legal authority.
7. Mr. R.K.Saini, learned Counsel submitted that while entertaining the petition this Court had stayed operation of the impugned order dated 7.4.87; later rule was issued and the interim order was confirmed, on 13.7.00.
8. Counsel submitted that in spite of complying with the policies and requirements notified by the DDA, the latter did not take steps to include the Petitioner’s name as a co-registrant. This resulted in untold hardship because the allotment was made in favor of the Petitioner’s deceased husband. Full amounts as demanded on the basis of the old disposal cost, namely Rs.1,63,700/- of which the complete initial deposit claim was made. Yet the DDA slept over the matter and eventually transferred the registration in 1990. However, DDA took no action to ensure that possession of the flat was handed over. The DDA realised its mistake and allotted an alternative flat in Jhilmil in 1993. But it claimed a higher disposal cost when the circumstances clearly did not justify it. The petitioner nevertheless paid the balance amount as per the original allotment letter and still was made to wait for two more years before the possession was handed over of the flat at Jhilmil. In these circumstances the DDA was liable to pay interest for the period between 6.7.89 to 5.8.95 on the amount of Rs.89,900/- lying with it and interest on Rs.60,000/- for the period between 16.4.93 and 5.8.95 i.e. when possession was finally handed over.
9. Learned Counsel has relied upon the decision of this Court in Dhani Ram Kapoor v. DDA 1997 (1) AD (DEL) 578 to say that once an allottee deposits the money within the stipulated time, subsequent cancellation of the allotment without notice to show cause notice is illegal and unjustified. He also submitted that in a Division Bench ruling namely Apar Kaur v. DDA (CWP 4796/95) decided on 28.7.89 it was held that after issuance of allotment letter, in favor of a deceased registrant if payment had been deposited by his widow, in time, transfer of registration is only a minor ministerial formality and that cancellation of the allotment and issuance of fresh allotment with higher disposal cost amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Counsel has also placed reliance upon the instance of Smt. Veerawali who, it is stated placed in almost identical circumstances and was given a fresh allotment but at the old cost.
10. Despite pendency of this proceedings for all these 8 years the DDA has not cared to file a return. It has also been unrepresented in the course of the hearing.
11. The facts which can be gleaned from the pleadings and materials are that the Petitioner, consistent with the DDA’s policy applied for being treated as a co-registrant in 1986. Her husband expired in 1987. In April 1989 she received the allotment letter indicating total disposal cost of Rs.1,79,900/-; later it was reduced to Rs. 1,63,700/-. The total initial amount demanded by virtue of the later letter reducing the cost was Rs.67,623.32. As per that letter an amount of Rs.12,000/- along with interest of Rs.3185.18 was lying in credit of the registrant with the DDA. She deposited the sum of Rs.77,747.14 on 5.7.89. Thus, the total amount with the DDA at that stage was Rs.92,832.14.
12. The transfer of registration took place on 30.8.90. Yet for no disclosed reason possession of the flat was not handed over to her. Eventually, the allotment was cancelled and in 1993, the DDA upon being satisfied about genuineness of her claim issued a fresh allotment letter to the Petitioner, for a flat at Jhilmil. This time however the allotment letter did not reflect the sum of Rs.92832.14 lying with it; it also indicated a higher cost of Rs. 3,30,900. The petitioner again had to knock the doors of the DDA and after further delay the possession of the flat was handed over on 5.8.95. The Petitioner perhaps was reconciled to all these circumstances and did not approach the Court; she was apparently provoked to file the this writ petition as the writ of the demand dated 7.4.87 which claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,456/36 was issued to her . The demand is premised upon the petitioner’s default for arrears of 35 Installments up to March 1996 being Rs.1,10,181/- and a penalty in excess of Rs.80,000/-
13. The above factual matrix displays utter indifference to the petitioner’s plight and reveals an attitude bordering upon arrogance by the DDA. The petitioner hand, prior to her husband’s death applied to be recorded as co-registrant. At the time of allotment her application had not even been processed. Yet she complied with the DDA and even paid amounts in excess of the initial deposits demanded, within time in 1989. She was made to wait for one more year before the registration was transferred. At that time the DDA in its wisdom kept quiet about her right to possession of the flat allotted, in Pitampura. In 1993 it woke up, realised the mistake and issued a fresh allotment letter. This allotment letter too was flawed for two reasons. One, the amount demanded as disposal cost was Rs.3.3 lakhs. There was no justification for this demand because the previous allotment was cancelled for no fault attributable to the Petitioner. Two, the entire amount of Rs.92,000/- odd lying with the DDA was not reflected in the demand letter. The petitioner however represented against these facts and paid Rs.66,000/- on 16.4.93. Even thereafter she was made to wait for two more years and the flat was handed over only in 1995.
14. Cumulatively seen, the above narrative shows that the petitioner had paid about Rs.1,60,000/- before even she was handed over the possession of the flat. This amount corresponded with the total disposal cost of Rs.163,000/- indicated in the first allotment letter. In this background, the demand under Section 68 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act for a further sum of Rs.1,91,456.36 is entirely unjustified. It has completely ignored all the intervening events. The demand claims default for non payment of 35 Installments If those 35 Installments calculated from 1993, too, there is no justification because admittedly possession was handed over on 5.8.95. The decision of the Division Bench in Apar Kaur (supra) concerned a case where the registrant under the NPRS Scheme, 1979 was a victim of 1984 riots. She was unaware of the registration as all documents were lost. The registration was not transferred by the DDA initially but only belatedly thereafter. The cost demanded was challenged. It was held that the petitioner therein had deposited the amount demanded within a specified period of time but only minor ministerial formalities were not completed for the transfer of the registration. The decision in Apar Kaur was followed in Prabha Arora v. DDA , and Mohinder Malik v. D.D.A 103 (2003) DLT 710.
15. I see considerable force in the submission on behalf of the petitioner that her case is identical with that of Apar Kaus’s case. Here too like in Apar Kaur (supra) the application for inclusion of the wife as a co-registrant was pending; allotment letter was issued in the name of the deceased registrant and the full amount demanded had been paid. Yet the allotted flat was not handed over and much later another allotment letter; for a different flat was issued indicating a higher cost was issued. As was held by the Division Bench such an action was arbitrary; it was also taken without considering relevant factors.
16. Every public authority- the DDA being no exception, has to act on non arbitrary and discernably rational principles, taking into consideration all relevant factors: each of these were consigned to the winds in this case. The initial inaction and the later action of the DDA can at best be described as essays of error.The petitioner was made to wait for about 6 years before she could get possession of her flat and was even thereafter sought to be saddled with a completely unjustified demand of above Rs. 1.91 lakhs.
17. The above discussion would show that about Rs.92,000/- had been deposited in 1989, as per the DDA’s demand; the sum of Rs.66,000/- was deposited on 16.4.93 upon her being intimated about a fresh allotment. The DDA did not reflect the amount of Rs.92,000/- lying with it nor did show any element of interest on those amounts. A Division Bench judgment of this Court, in T.R.S. Vardhan v. DDA 65 (1997) DLT 333 (DB), had held that in such circumstances, where the consumer is not to be blamed, and is deprived of possession of the flat, he has to be compensated with interest, for the deprivation. The court held as follows:
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having given a thoughtful consideration to all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the grievance raised by the petitioner is justified and deserves to be redeemed discarding the stand taken by the DDA. In face of the Division Bench judgment dated 6.11.95 it cannot be disputed that it is the respondent-DDA who has been responsible for delaying the allotment to the petitioner. The petitioner is not to blame. The allotment being of hire purchase category, it is admitted that with the payment of the initially deposit money the petitioner would have become entitled to possession of the flat. If only the allotment would have been made in the year 1989, the petitioner would have made the initial deposit, got the possession, and would have commenced payment of Installments. It is true that the amount of initial deposit would be realised to the DDA by a delay of about six years but then who is to be blamed? Not the petitioner, but the DDA itself. Secondly, if only the allotment would have been made in the year 1989, the petitioner would have enjoyed possession and occupation of the flat. If the DDA insists on payment of interest then it must also compensate the petitioner for depriving him of the possession and enjoyment of the flat for about six years. The loss occasioned to the petitioner on account of his having been deprived of the possession and enjoyment of the flat deserves to be balanced against the loss of interest to the DDA occasioned by belated recovery of money to it. The petitioner cannot be held liable to payment of interest on the amount of initial deposit.
18. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the claim for interest for the period between 5.7.89 on the amount of Rs.89,900/- till 5.8.95 is justified. Likewise the claim for interest, on the sum of Rs. 66,000/- for the period 16.4.93 to 5.8.95 when possession was handed over, is also justified. The petitioner therefore is entitled to 12% interests for the said amounts for both the periods. The demand dated 7.4.87 is illegal and unjustified and is therefore quashed.
19. Accordingly a direction is issued to the Respondents to calculate interest at 12% on Rs.89,900/- for the period 6.9.89 to 5.8.95; and on the amount of Rs.66,000/- for the period16.4.93 to 5.8.95 within four weeks. The balance amount constituting the difference between the original demand of Rs.1,63,700/- and the amount actually lying to the petitioner’s credit as on 16.4.93 shall be adjusted from the said interest amounts. The DDA is directed to refund and pay such amount of interest on the balance amount, after adjustment, within six weeks.
20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. Rule made absolute. The Respondent shall bear the costs of these proceedings, quantified at Rs.20,000/- which shall be paid to the petitioner within six weeks.