I \; 77,9t & 44 to 51 % 29.08.20rr Present: Mr. S.K. Rungt4 Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Singh, Adv.for the petitioners. Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA in W.P.(C) Nos. 3 260 l20II, 3262 l20ll, 326 6 1201 1 & 37 39 I 20Il . ' Mr. Arnit Metu'a for Mr. Ajay Vettna, Advs. for DDA in W.P. (C) Nos. 325 8/2011, 3259 120 lI & 3263 120 IL . Mr. Arun Btu'bal, Adv. for DDA in W.P.(C) No.3261 & 3264t20tr. Mr. M.t<. Singh, Adv. for DDA in W.P.(C) No.326512011. W .P.(C\ N os. 3739 l20LI. 3266 l20ll. 32581201I. 3259 12011., 3260 l20ll. 326 r l20l l. 32 62 I 2011. 3263 I 2011. 326 4 | 20tl & 3265 | 201r. 1. The senior counsel for the petitioners contends that the controversy in, these petitions is the s€rne as in W.P.(C) 1077812009 titled A.C. Khullar vs. DDA decided on 14tl'March,2011 and the petitioners herein are also entitled to the salne relief as ganted in the said order. 2, The counsels for DDA have fairly stated that the controversy is the same. 3. Ms. Sangeeta Chandla counsel for the respondent DDA however infonns that the respondent DDA is considering the proposal to extend the benefit of the order dated 14tr' Malch ,20!I nA.C. Khullar's case (supra) to all original allottees irrespective of whether they were the petitioners in the earlier litigation or not. It is infonned that if the said decision is taken then the present petitions would become infiuctuous; tirne of 15 days is therefore sought to enable a decision to be taken. .4 1- J. 1/- Signing Date:06.09.2024 17:17:58 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V 4. I arn however of the opinion that no pupose would be served in keeping these petitions pending. The senior counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners are not seeking any other relief than as granted in A.C.Khultar's case. If the respondent DDA takes a decision as aforesaid, the petitioners in any case would be entitled to refirnd of the 20olo surcharge paid. Else, if the respondent DDA decides to appeal against the judgment in A.C.KhullaI's case, it is deerned expedient that appeals against judgment in these petitions be also prefened simultaneously and all counsels are heard in the said intra court appeals. 5. The petitions fl'e therefore allowed. 6. The respondent DDA is directed to refund to each of the petitioners the 20o/o sulchalge collected fi'om each of them in respect of the flat allotted to thern respectively and notwithstanding the office order dated 5'l' August, 2008 issued by the respondent DDA. The refund as aforesaid be made on or before 3 I't October, 201 1. No order as to costs. Dasti. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW J AUGUST 29,2011 pp.. ,a 2/-