Manmohan JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J.
1. Petitioners, who are allottees under the Expandable Housing Scheme, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "Scheme, 1996") challenge non-issuance of fresh Demand-cum-Allotment Letters. In fact, the petitioners seek Demand-cum-Allotment letters at the same rate/cost, as issued in 2014-15 to the other allottees of the Scheme, 1996.
2. The relevant facts of the present cases are that in 1996, the petitioners had applied for allotment of flats under the Scheme, 1996.
3. On 31st March, 1997, draw of lots was held and the petitioners were allotted flats. In 1998, Demand-cum-Allotment letters were issued to the petitioners. However, some of the petitioners challenged the demands raised in the said letters.
4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority, CWP 2142/1999 decided on 27th November, 2003 repelled the challenge to the upward revision in the disposal cost, but directed the petitioners to choose an option between payment of consideration for the allotted flat at the current cost within forty-five days from the date of the judgment or to make payment of the original cost with interest @ 12% p.a. on the 50% of the amount from the date of allotment and balance 50% of the amount from the date when the amenities became available.
5. From the respondent-DDA's file noting dated 24th March, 2005, it is apparent that it took a decision not only to waive off the limitation of forty-five days for exercise of option for payment at current cost, but also decided to consider the cases of even those allottees who had exercised the option for payment of current cost beyond forty-five days. In the note, it was also stated that as the current cost was working out to be less than the old cost plus interest, a decision was required on the issue as to whether all the allottees irrespective of the factum of having exercised option for payment at current cost, could be charged the current rates.
6. However, no decision in this regard was taken by the respondent-authorities on the ground that a similar matter was pending consideration before the higher authorities.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that on coming to know about the issuance of the allotment letters to similarly situated allottees as late as 2014 and 2015, they filed representations calling upon DDA to issue demand letters.
8. Since the respondent-DDA failed to redress the grievance of the petitioners, the present petitions were filed.
9. Ms. Maninder Acharya learned senior counsel for petitioners states that in accordance with the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority (supra), respondent-DDA was required to issue fresh demands after calculating interest in the manner provided in the judgment and the interest was to be calculated till the date of issuance of the fresh demand letters. She refers to the respondent-DDA's counter affidavit in extenso to contend that respondent-DDA had admitted that it had failed to issue Demand-cum-Allotment letters in accordance with the judgment in Raj Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority (supra).
10. Ms. Acharya, also contends that no period of limitation is provided in the event of payment of current cost along with interest.
11. Ms. Acharya points out that in the cases of similarly situated allottees under the Scheme, 1996, like Shri K.K. Swajana Mitran and Smt. Leela, respondent-DDA had issued fresh allotment-cum-demand letters in respect of Expandable Housing Scheme flats on old cost along with interest, as late as 27th August, 2014 and 7th May, 2015.
12. On the other ........