Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Under the said scheme, DDA sought registration from individuals pertaining to different categories of flats, proposed to be constructed in future. Middle Income Group, Lower Income Group and at the bottom Janta Category Flats were notified to be constructed by DDA in the future. Within the scheme, separate registration for SC/ST persons was also envisaged.

5. As per the scheme as originally notified, names of all applicants were to be registered by DDA. As and when flat(s) in a respective category were available in a particular colony, names of all registrants were to be entered in a draw of lots. Whosoever was successful, was to get the flat allotted at the draw in his name.

9. As would be noted from individual facts hereunder, barring a stray, most of the writ petitioners who were registered in 1979 found their priority maturing somewhere in the year 1996 to the year 2000 i.e. 15 to 21 years after registration. 10 to 15 years after 1986 when priority was assigned to them.

10. Most of the petitioners claim that having applied in 1979, they changed residence. New address was duly furnished to DDA. When their priority matured, DDA entered their names in a draw of lots. Flat allotted to them was offered by and under a demand-cum-allotment letter. DDA was negligent in posting the letter at the old address. Petitioners did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. Petitioners claim that they should be allotted a flat at the cost prevalent when original demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to them. One or two cases relate to the priority of the petitioner being missed, in that, their names being not entered at the draw of lots when names of persons junior to them in priority were entered.

"Rather the registrant must be allowed to pay the rates prevailing at the time when the mistake occurred unless it is established by the DDA that the mistake was known to the registrant and he/she did not bring it to the notice of the DDA within one year of the draw. In the instant case, there is nothing on record to show that the allottee, who is a widow, was aware of the mistake of the DDA. The mistake was discovered by the appellant only in September 1998. The observation of the learned Single Judge that the appellant knew that persons junior to her in the priority list have been included in the draw of lots held earlier in 1994 for allotment of a flat is not supported by the record. Nothing was shown to us by the respondent from the record that the appellant knew that persons junior to her in priority list had been included in the draw of lots held on January 20, 1994. We cannot allow the DDA to penalise the registrant for the mistake committed by it. The DDA must take care that a registrant is allotted a flat as per the rates which were prevalent at the time when he ought to have been allotted the same but for the mistake of the DDA. It is well settled that even for the fault of the court no litigant must be allowed to suffer. The same principle with greater force applies to the action of the administrative bodies." (Underlining added).

"There is no doubt that insofar as the period post April 2000 is concerned, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities and the delay is on the part of the respondent authorities. Further, it has been held that the petitioner should have been included in the draw of lots in 1990. In my considered view, though the duty is on the respondent/DDA to inform in case of an allotment, it cannot be said that an allottee is absolved of all responsibility to make any enquiry for all times to come. A pointed query was raised to the counsel for the petitioner as to what would be the repercussion in case the petitioner had not approached the respondent for another ten years. Learned counsel states that still the petitioner would be entitled to the allotment at the 1990 price, as long as the scheme remains in force. It is also relevant to note that no separate draw of lots has been held for the SC/ST category after 1990. I am unable to accept the contention that the petitioner has no responsibility to make any enquiries for all times to come specially once it is known that no draw of lots has been held for the specific category after 1990. It cannot be said that the petitioner can come even after decades and state that if the scheme is in force, there is no obligation on the petitioner. In my considered view taking into consideration that similar persons as the petitioner were allotted the plots in 1990 and no allotment had been made for the said category, the petitioner is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, excluding a reasonable period of time to be granted to the petitioner after 1990 up to April, 2000 which the petitioner approached the respondent. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner should pay interest from 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 2000 for a period of eight years at the rate of 12 per cent per annum."