* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th February, 2012
+ LPA 1067/2011
% DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ....Appellant
Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.
Versus
MOHINDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Vikram Saini,
Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The appellant DDA by this Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment dated 19.05.2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C) No.1096/2011 preferred by the respondent and restoring the allotment of the LIG flat in favour of the respondent and directing the appellant DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the respondent for the amount the flat was initially allotted together with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
LPA 1067/2011 Page 1 of 6
2. The respondent had applied to the appellant DDA under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979 for allotment of an LIG flat. No allotment was made in favour of the respondent till the year 2000, when the respondent shifted from the residential address furnished in the application form, to another address. The respondent did not intimate the appellant DDA of the change in address. Resultantly, when the allotment in favour of the respondent matured in the year 2000 and a demand-cum-allotment letter dated 11.08.2000-18.08.2000 was sent at the address furnished by the respondent, the same was returned un-delivered.
3. The appellant DDA on 20.02.2001, published advertisement in the newspapers showing the registration numbers of the undelivered demand letters and calling upon the registrants thereof to approach the appellant DDA. The registration number of the respondent was included therein. Upon the respondent not responding thereto, the registration of the respondent was deemed cancelled.
4. The respondent claims to have in the year 2010 learnt that all the registrants of the NPRS-1979 had been made allotment. He then approached the appellant DDA, when he claims to have learnt of the LPA 1067/2011 Page 2 of 6 cancellation in the manner aforesaid of his registration. Upon the representation of the respondent failing to meet any success, the writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed.
5. It was / is the plea of the respondent that even though he had not intimated of the change of his address but in the documents filed by him in the year 1979, his official address was available and where he continued to work till the year 2004; that upon the demand-cum-allotment letter being returned undelivered from his residential address, attempt for intimation at his occupational address ought to have been made.
6. Per contra, the case of the appellant / DDA was / is that the respondent had failed to furnish his occupational address against the column provided therefor in the application form and thus the appellant DDA could not be blamed for non intimation of the allotment to the respondent. It was / is further pleaded that the NPRS, 1979 in which the respondent had registered had since closed and the respondent is now entitled only to refund of the registration amount.
7. The learned Single Judge has in the judgment impugned in this petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, accepted the plea of the LPA 1067/2011 Page 3 of 6 respondent that since the occupational address even though not filled in by the respondent in the application form was available in the documents and since the allotment was being made long after the application, attempt should have been made to intimate the respondent at the occupational address available in the documents filed along with the application. Finding that as per the policy dated 25.02.2004 of the appellant DDA, upon the registrant approaching the appellant DDA within four years is entitled to allotment at the rates of the initial demand together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, direction for allotment of flat as aforesaid was made.
8. The counsel for the appellant DDA before us has contended that the appellant DDA could not be expected to search in the documents filed along with the application for the alternate addresses, when the registrant had failed to provide the same; that in the present case, the respondent was clearly at fault in not intimating the change of address; that the policy dated 25.02.2004 applied by the learned Single Judge was not applicable in the facts of the case.
9. Finding the respondent to be at fault to the extent of not intimating the change of his residential address and to have not enquired about the LPA 1067/2011 Page 4 of 6 status of his registration and to have waited for inordinately long time till 2010 to enquire and further finding the respondent to be not covered by the policy aforesaid, we had enquired from the counsel for the respondent whether the respondent was willing to pay the cost of the flat of the date when the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the respondent after obtaining instructions has stated that the respondent for the sake of finality is willing to pay the costs of the flat as on the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 19.05.2011.
10. We find that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition exercising the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be lost sight of that the priority of the respondent had matured nearly 24 years after the registration. The respondent, who had waited for the flat for so long, ought not to be deprived thereof for his default in intimating the change of address. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is not interfereable in appeal unless found to be perverse. No perversity is found in the present case. On the contrary with the respondent expressing willingness to pay the cost of the flat of the year 2011, the interest of the appellant DDA stands sufficiently protected.
LPA 1067/2011 Page 5 of 6
11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the respondent, we modify the same to the extent that the appellant DDA shall be entitled to demand the cost of the flat as on 19.05.2011. The order be now complied with within ten weeks of today. The appeal is disposed of. This order having been made in the circumstances aforesaid, be not treated as precedent.
No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE FEBRUARY 14, 2012 'gsr' LPA 1067/2011 Page 6 of 6