Kailash Chand Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                          LPA No. 256/2011

Kailash Chand Gupta                              ....Appellant
                Through          Mr. Rajesh Pathak, Advocate.

                    VERSUS

Delhi Development Authority              .....Respondent
               Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
                                 ORDER

% 22.03.2011 CM No. 5741/2011 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

LPA No. 256/2011 & CM No. 5742/2011 (delay) The appellant got his name registered under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, (NPRS, for short) for allotment of MIG flat. He gave his address as House No. 10938, Gali Pipal Wali, Motia Khan, Delhi-6. Subsequently, on 2nd September, 1987, he informed DDA that he had shifted his residence to B-35, Pocket BR, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi 110 052. Allotment of the appellant matured in the draw of lots held on 28th March, 2001 and a flat at Dwarka was allotted to the LPA No. 256/2011 Page 1 of 6 appellant. Demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 30.8.2001 - 04.09.2001 sent to the appellant at his new address. The said letter was received back with the report "left without address". It may be noted that the balance allotments under the said scheme had matured by 2003-2004 and tail end allotments were made in 2004. As there was a delay in making allotments and in some cases Delhi Development Authority (DDA) had failed to rectify and record changes in their record, the DDA floated a Wrong Address Policy and the persons covered by the policy were entitled to allotment with some benefits/advantages.

2. The appellant claims that he has been wrongly denied benefit under the Address Change Policy of the DDA. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to photocopy of the register and entry made at Sl. No. 9120, Regn. No. 34934/MIG and submits that this entry in the Register shows that the appellant had intimated change in address to the DDA vide letter dated 7th December, 1989.The appellant has submitted that vide letter dated 7th December, 1989, he had intimated change of address from B-35, Pocket BR, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi 110 052 to House NO. 27, Shivam House, Sector 15, Rohini. This LPA No. 256/2011 Page 2 of 6 contention of the appellant was specifically examined by the Committee and rejected.

3. Learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that there is interpolation in DDA records and this letter dated 7th December, 1989 has been placed on the record. He has noticed that there is difference in signature of the receiving clerk on the letter available on the DDA record and photocopy of the same letter enclosed in the writ petition. The appellant had appeared before the Committee in person and stated that he was not aware of the pendency of the writ petition in the High Court. He had disclosed that the case was actually being pursued by a property dealer who had engaged a lawyer to appear for him. It has been pointed out in the counter affidavit that signature of the appellant on various documents differ.

4. There is grave doubt whether the appellant had actually shifted to Rohini in 1989. It was for the appellant to establish the said factum and he has failed. The appellant had produced his voter identity card issued on 20th November, 1995 before the Committee in 2008 in which his address was mentioned as B-35, Pocket BR, Shalimar Bagh, New LPA No. 256/2011 Page 3 of 6 Delhi 110 052. The appellant in the rejoinder affidavit filed before the Single Judge had stated as under:-

"The Committee further erred into arriving the conclusion that the Petitioner was not residing in Rohini in August/September, 2001. The said house bearing H.No. 27, Shivam House, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi; is of one of the relative of the Petitioner. The owner of the said house granted permission to reside in the said house in the year 1989 and the Petitioner started residing there and informed the Respondent about change of his address. After sometime the landlord was in need of the said premises for some time and directed the Petitioner to vacate the premises which the petitioner did as desired by the said land lord. The petitioner thereafter shifted at House No. B- 35, Pocket-BR, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi with his brother till 1998. This is why the Petitioner submitted an Identity Card issued by the Election Commission of India at the aforesaid address. The Petitioner again shifted at a premises in Lawrence Road and after some time at Pitampura and when the landlord of H. No. 27, Shivam House, Sector- 15, Rohini, Delhi did not required the premises for any longer, the Petitioner again shifted at H.No. 27, Shiv House, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi with the permission of its landlord in 1998 and is still residing there. All the problem occurs since the Petitioner don't own a permanent dwelling. This is fate of all persons residing in tenanted premises. "

5. The aforesaid explanation given by the appellant is vague, cryptic and without specific details. It is stated that the appellant had shifted to Rohini and then to Shalimar Bagh, where he remained till 1998 and then shifted back House NO. 27, Shivam House, Sector 15, Rohini. The name of the owner of the house at Rohini is not given. No other document in support has been filed. Learned Single Judge has rejected the said long winding explanation as unconvincing. Therefore we do no see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Learned single Judge that the appellant had not submitted letter dated 7th December, 1989, to DDA with regard to change of address.

6. It is clear from the aforesaid facts that the appellant had lost interest and did not want to take allotment. It is difficult to believe that he was not aware of the allotment made in 2001. He rose and started making representation in 2010 obviously to take advantage of the increase in the prices. The Committee also noticed that the case of the appellant was being pursued by a property dealer and the appellant had admitted before the committee that he was not even aware of the writ petition. We are not satisfied that the impugned order by the LPA No. 256/2011 Page 5 of 6 learned Single Judge merits interference. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the appeal is also dismissed without any orders as to costs.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE March 22, 2011 KKB LPA No. 256/2011 Page 6 of 6