DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY versus PUSHPENDRA KUMAR JAIN

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 770 · Decided: 23-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
PUSHPENDRA KUMAR JAIN 
SEPTEMBER 23, 1994 
B 
·· [B.P. JEEV AN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Housing Development Authority-Housing scheme-Draw of lots-In-
... 
timation to allottee after three months-Enhancement of rates by authority 
between the period of draw of flats and intimation-Time of three months 
c taken for intimation held not inordinate nor deliberate-Mere draw of lot does 
not vest an indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment at price prevailing 
on date of draw of lot~Right to flat arises on communication of letter of 
allotment-Price prevailing on date of such communication is applicable un-
less otherwise provided in the scheme. 
-
D 
The respondent was allotted a flat under the scheme of New Pattern 
of 1979 in the draw conducted on 12th October, 1990, but the allotment-
cum-demand letter was sent to him by the appellant-authority on January 
9/13,1991. Between the date on which the lot was drawn and the date on 
which the allotment of flat was communicated to the respondent, the land 
E 
rates were revised by the appellant-authority by its circular dated 6th 
December, 1990 and the respondent was called upon to remit the first 
instalment of the price determined taking into account the revised land 
rates. 
The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court contend-
F 
ing that only the land rates prevailing on the date of draw of lots should 
be charged from him; that the revised land rates cannot be applied to him 
inasmuch as the said rates came into force after the draw of lots. 
-
The High Court allowed the petition holding that (i) on account of 
G inefficiency on the part of the appellant-authority there was delay in 
issuing the allotment-cum-demand letter; since the delay was on the 
appellant's part it cannot charge the revised rates from the respondent 
~
inasmuch as the respondent became entitled to get the Oat on the date of 
draw of lots i.e. on Oct?ber 12, 1990. 
H 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
770 
D.DA v. P.K.JAIN 
771 
Court, this Court 
A 
· HELD : 1. Both the grounds assigned by the High Court are unsus-
tainable. There was no material piaced before the High Court ~ nor has 
any material been brought to the notice of this Court • to record a finding 
that the interval of three months between the draw oflots and the despatch 
of allotment-cum-demand letter was on account of inefficiency of the B 
appellant. The interval of three months between the draw of lots and 
sending the demand-cum-allotment letters cannot be characterised either 
as inordinate or as deliberate delay. The scheme itself does not prescribe 
the period within which allotment. has to be communicated from the date 
of draw of lots. It has, of course, to be done within a reasonable period. 
C 
[774-B to DJ 
2. There is no legal basis for holding that the respondent obtained 
a vested right to allotment on the draw of lots. The system of drawing of 
lots is only mode, a method, a process to identify the allottee, i.e., it is a 
process of selection. It is not allotment by itself. Mere identification or D 
selection of the allottee does not clothe the person selected with a legal 
right to allotment at the price prevailing on the date of draw of lots. The 
scheme evolved by the appellant does not say so either expressly or by 
necessary implication. On the contrary, clause (14) thereof say that "the 
-estimated prices mentioned in the brochure are illustrative and are subject 
to revision/modification depending upon the exigencies of lay out, cost of E 
construction etc."No provision of law also could be brought to the notice 
of this Court in support of the proposition that mere draw of lots vests an 
indefeasible right in the allottee for allotment at the price obtaining on the 
date of draw of lots. Since the right to flat arises only on the communica-
tion of the letter of allotment, the price or rates prevailing on the date of p 
such communication is applicable unless otherwise provided in the 
Scheme. [774-E to G, 775-A, BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6205 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.11.93 of the Delhi High 
Court in C.W.P. No. 906 of 1991. 
Arun J aitley and J ayant Bhushan for the Appellant. 
Shiv Kumar Suri for the Respondent. 
G 
H 
772 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard counsel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.