CWP No.718/2007 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.718/2007 % Date of Decision: 30.07.2009 Satya Pal …. Petitioner Through Mr.Sumit Bansal, Advocate. Versus Delhi Development Authority …. Respondent Through Mr.Yeeshu Jain, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * Rule. With the consent of the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner has sought direction to the respondent to issue demand-cum-allotment letter for the flat bearing No.366, 1st floor, Pocket GH-13, Pachim Vihar, New Delhi and for quashing of decision of the respondent authority as communicated vide letter dated 7th July, 2007 and 29th August, 2006. The contention of the petitioner is that he applied with the respondent authority for allotment of flat under SFS category. The CWP No.718/2007 Page 2 of 4 allegation of the petitioner is that he submitted all the documents required for allotment of flat, however, the demand letter had not been issued by the respondent even after fulfilling all the formalities. During the pendency of the petition it was held that the price/cost prevailing on the date of allotment letter is to be charged from the petitioner for the allotment of the flat. The petitioner was also directed to hand over the copy of the demand letter dated 28th November, 2000 and the respondent was directed to examine the case of the petitioner again in terms of letter dated 28th November, 2000 and file the status report/additional affidavit. Pursuant to the directions given by this Court an additional affidavit dated 10th July, 2009 has been filed on behalf of the respondent stipulating inter-alia that the rate prevailing on the date of allotment letter would be charged from the petitioner. It is further deposed that the draw was held on 7th March, 2000 and the allotment letter was issued on 28th November, 2000. The cost of the flat No.366, category II, First Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi comprising of an area of 93.51 sq.meters with a super area of 3.81 sq.meters plus department charges and interest and the cost of land has been computed as Rs.11,97,490/-. The respondent in the circumstances has contended that the petitioner is liable to make the payment of Rs.11,97,490/- for allotment of flat No. 366, category II, First Floor, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. CWP No.718/2007 Page 3 of 4 The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that about Rs.1,16,000/- has already been paid by the petitioner. The respondent shall be liable to give adjustment of the amount already deposited by the petitioner on petitioner producing the necessary challan and proof of deposit of the said amount. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner is also liable to pay simple interest for some period at the rate of 18% per annum and also compound interest for remaining period at the rate of 15% per annum from the year 2000 till date. Neither the affidavit dated 10th July, 2009 of Mrs.Neelam Chadha, Director, Housing (H) disclosed that the petitioner is liable to pay interest nor any demand for interest has been made. There is no basis for charging the compound interest at 15% in the facts and circumstances nor any justification has been given by the leaned counsel for the respondent. In any case if the DDA was entitled for any interest, it should have disclosed in the affidavit which was filed on behalf of respondent pursuant to the orders of this Court. In the circumstances, the respondent shall not be entitled for any interest. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. On the petitioner paying Rs.11,97,490/- within four weeks subject to adjustment of any amount already paid by the petitioner to the respondent and fulfilling any other formality, the possession of the flat be delivered to the CWP No.718/2007 Page 4 of 4 petitioner within four weeks thereafter. Considering the facts and circumstances, parties are left to bear their own cost. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. July 30, 2009 ANIL KUMAR, J. ‘k’