01 March 2024 Property Law >> Personal Law  

A resident of Delhi, recently emerged victorious in a legal battle against the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) regarding a flat allotment under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS). The dispute centered around the applicable rate for the flat, with Bhagwan Dass arguing for the price based on the initial allotment attempt in 1994, while DDA insisted on the much higher 2016 rate.

Facts:

· In 1979, the Petitioner, Bhagwan Dass, registered for a LIG flat under the Respondent's, Delhi Development Authority's, New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS). He duly deposited the initial fee and received a registration certificate. In 1987, the Petitioner fulfilled his obligation to inform the Respondent of a change in his correspondence address.

· The Respondent committed a material error in 1994 by sending the initial demand-cum-allotment letter (DAL) for Flat No. 68 to an incorrect address. This error resulted in the Petitioner not receiving the communication, leading to the subsequent cancellation of the flat allotment. The Respondent allocated a substitute flat (Flat No. 72) to the Petitioner but failed to issue the corresponding DAL, leaving the Petitioner unaware of this allotment.

· In 2016, the Respondent finally allotted Flat No. 93 to the Petitioner. However, the price reflected the 2016 market rate, significantly higher than the 1994 rate applicable if the initial allotment process had proceeded without the Respondent's errors.

Conclusions:

· The Court determined that the Respondent's actions in sending the initial DAL to the wrong address and failing to issue the DAL for the second allotment constituted negligence.

· The Court found that the Petitioner should not be penalized for the delays and missed communications caused by the Respondent's mistakes. The Court further interpreted the relevant DDA circular such that the cost of the flat is based on the date of the first, properly issued DAL, not a subsequent one necessitated by the Respondent's errors.

· Based on the aforementioned findings, the Court ruled that the Petitioner was entitled to Flat No. 93 at the 1994 rate, reflecting the price applicable when the initial allotment process should have been completed.