*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 12. + W.P.(C) 7924/2008 KULDEEP SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate. versus D.D.A. ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Manisha Tyagi, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 27.04.2009 1. The petitioner Mr. Kuldeep Singh had deposited Rs. 12,000/- with the respondent DDA and was registered for allotment of MIG flat under Ambedkar Awas Yojana, 1989. The petitioner was allotted registration no. 647A on 23.12.1989. 2. After waiting for more than 13 years the petitioner was allotted MIG flat No. 52, Third Floor, Pocket-I, Sector-6, Dwarka in the computerized draw held on 30.07.2003. DDA issued demand-cum allotment letter with block dates 25.09.2003 to 30.09.2003 for payment of the cost of flat as per schedule mentioned therein. The total cost of the flat was Rs. 13,03,446/-. As per the case of DDA the last date for making payment, with interest was 28.03.2004. 3. The petitioner claims that his wife was not well during the said period as she was suffering from cardiac problems. The petitioner has enclosed medical certificates and prescriptions including the prescriptions from AIIMS and other hospitals in support of his contention. The petitioner claims that in view of the illness of his wife, initially he had written letter dated 31.03.2004 for cancellation of registration and refund of registration money of Rs. 12,000/- with interest. 4. DDA by their letter dated 26.04.2004 wrote to the petitioner, stating that he should submit 4th copy of bank challan of Rs. 12,000/- for deposit of registration money and also appear in the office of Assistant Director, MIG to sign the Indeminity Bond on any working Monday or Thursday between 2.30 pm to 5.00 p.m. The date on which the said letter dated 26.04.2004 was dispatched and was received by the petitioner is however, not stated by DDA. 5. The petitioner, on 27.04.2004 wrote another letter stating therein that had made arrangement for funds and therefore his request for cancellation of registration and refund of registration deposit may be treated as withdrawn and the flat allotted to him may be restored. The petitioner further stated that he was ready to pay the restoration charges. The petitioner, thereafter wrote another letter dated 11.11.2004 enclosing challans for deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.3,63,200/- along with undertaking and affidavit. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited further amounts as per details given below: S.No. Challan No. Date Amount deposited. 3. 603684 20.06.05 Rs. 2,94,000/- 4. 603687 23.06.05 Rs. 80,000/- 5. 21242 04.07.05 Rs. 89,000/- 6. 21278 06.07.05 Rs. 2,48,000/- 7. 110130 11.07.05 Rs. 39,000/- 8. 102511 22.09.05 Rs. 60,000/- 6. Thus the petitioner made payment of the entire principal amount of Rs. 13,73,200/- as demanded by DDA. The aforesaid payments were received by DDA. Petitioner repeatedly wrote letters to the DDA enclosing therewith challans for payments deposited by him and requested for extension of time to make payments. These letters are dated 28.02.2005, 27.06.2005, 12.07.2005 and 22.09.2005. In these letters, the petitioner gave full details of the payments made to DDA. DDA vide letter dated 17.05.2005 wrote to the petitioner as under: “ With reference to your/this office letter dated 28.02.2005 on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that :- To deposit the balance amount so that case could be process further.” 7. By another letter dated 09.09.2005, DDA informed the petitioner as under: “ Sir/Madam, With reference to your/this office letter dated… on the subject cited above, I directed to inform you that please attend the office on any working Monday or Thursday between 2.30 PM & 5.30 PM alongwith original Election Identity Card, Passport or Ration Card for verification of genuiness. You are also requested to deposit the balance amount along with interest under intimation to the undersigned. “ 8. Reading of the first letter dated 17.05.2005 shows that the DDA had accepted the request of the petitioner made by the letter dated 27.04.2004 and had called upon the petitioner to deposit payments as demanded. Similarly the subsequent letter dated 09.09.2005 shows that the DDA had called upon the petitioner to report to the office of Assistant Director MIG along with papers for verification. Petitioner was asked to deposit balance amount with interest under intimation. The respondent-DDA has concealed and has not referred to these letters in their counter affidavit. DDA should not have concealed these facts and letters available in their records. As a public authority, the reply affidavit filed should be truthful and complete. 9. It is submitted by DDA that after receiving the entire principal amount, by order/letter dated 20.04.2006, DDA informed the petitioner that the original registration has been cancelled in view of request made on 31.03.2004. However, the fact that request of the petitioner dated 31.03.2004 stood withdrawn vide letter dated 27.04.2004 remains unstated and unanswered. Further, payments made by the petitioner towards cost of the flat, acceptance thereof and letters dated 17.5.2005 and 9.9.2005 calling upon the petitioner to pay interest for belated payments remain unanswered. 10. I do not think that DDA can be permitted to go behind and change its stand in this manner, after having asked the petitioner to deposit the balance payments for allotment of flat vide letters dated 17.04.2005 and 09.09.2005. By the said letters, the respondent accepted the payments made by the petitioner. Having accepted the payments and after calling upon the petitioner to make payments, the contention of the DDA that the original registration was cancelled cannot be accepted. Principle of estoppel is applicable. The petitioner continued making deposits and DDA retained these deposits and even asked the petitioner to make further deposits and interest, on the basis that the petitioner’s registration and allotment is alive and active. It is unfair, unjust and arbitrary for the DDA in 2006 to contend that payments made are void and of no consequence and the registration was cancelled on 26.04.2004. The petitioner of course will be liable to pay interest for the delayed deposits @ 18% p.a. for the period of default as per the policy of DDA. 11. Another plea raised by the DDA in the counter affidavit is that the default and delay in the present case is more than one year i.e. the entire amount was not paid within one year. I do not find any merit in the said contention as DDA itself is to be blamed for not immediately replying and answering the petitioner when letter dated 27.4.2004 was written withdrawing request for cancellation of registration. Secondly, by the time letters dated 17.5.2005 and 9.9.2005 were written, one year period from date mentioned in the demand cum allotment letter i.e. 28.3.2004 had expired but the petitioner was called upon to deposit payment. Lastly, the policy decision, if any, was not brought to the notice and knowledge of the petitioner so as to warn him. 12. Petitioner will visit to the office of Assistant Director, MIG on 18.05.2009 at 3.00 p.m. along with relevant papers. DDA will calculate interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment and inform the petitioner in writing on 18.05.2009. Payment will be made within four weeks from the date of communication of the said demand. In case the flat in question has been allotted to a third person, another flat will be allotted to the petitioner in the same locality in the next mini draw to be held within two months. Cost will be the cost prevalent when the demand cum allotment letter with block dates 25.09.2003 to 30.09.2003 was sent. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 27, 2009 Ap/P