Delhi High Court
Shri A.P. Sharma vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001 VAD Delhi 845, 92 (2001) DLT 270, 2001 (59) DRJ 354
Bench: M Sarin
ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J (Oral)
Rule.
1. With the consent of the parties writ petition is taken up for disposal.
2. The petitioner by this writ petition seeks a writ of mandamus for allotment of flat in New Pattern Registration Scheme of 1979. The petitioner claims that he had already deposited a sum of Rs.1500/- at the time of booking in the year 1979. The petitioner was allotted flat (LIG) No.A-3/182-D, Kondli, Delhi under the said scheme, as per the list released by the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the balance amount payable for allotment and handing over the possession of the flat.
3. Counter affidavit has been filed. Rejoinder has also been filed. Essential facts necessary for disposal of the present writ petition may be briefly noted:
The petitioner had got himself registered for a L.I.G. flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, vide registration No.55048, priority No.32673, after making a deposit of Rs.150/-. The petitioner subsequently got this registration transferred to the expandable housing scheme which was announced in the year 1995. The said scheme provided for switching over from New Pattern Scheme1979 to the expandable Scheme. The petitioner under the expandable housing scheme, was allotted a type-A flat being flat No.59, Sector-22, Pocket-D, Rohini, Delhi. The demand letter was issued to petitioner on 15.5.1995. The said demand letter was returned by the postal authorities with the remarks "unclaimed". As the petitioner failed to make the payment under the expandable housing scheme, to which his registration had been transferred, the allotment of the flat stood cancelled. However, inadvertently the petitioner's name was not deleted from the information fed for computerised draw of lot. As a consequence, petitioner was included in the draw of lots and flat bearing No.182-D, first floor, Pocket-A-3, Kondli Gharoli was allocated to him as per the draw of lots. This allotment was a result of the inadvertent mistake, since the petitioner was already allotted a flat in Rohini under the expandable housing scheme. The respondents accordingly did not issue the demand letter for the LIG Flat in Kondli, Gharoli.
4. The petitioner it appears, on learning of his being successful in the draw of lots under the New Pattern Scheme, 1979, staked the claim for allotmenet of flat and filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to urge that petitioner's allotment had not been cancelled under the New Pattern Scheme, 1979. Even no cancellation had been received in respect of the flat allotted under the expandable Housing scheme. Needless to mention under the term of the allotment, if payment is not made there is automatic cancellation. A a formal letter is not warranted as per the said terms.
5. Learned counsel next urged that demand letters were not sent even under the expandable housing scheme. The petitioner thus could not make the payment. This submission is devoid of merit.
6. The petitioner in the rejoinder claimed that he had notified the respondents of change of his address. It is claimed that demand letters were not received at the changed address. Reliance is placed on Subhash Chander Chandha Vs.DDA reported at 72 (1998) DLT 413.
In this cited case, no demand letters were either prepared or sent to the allottee, since the DDA officials discovered it to be a case of double allotment. This case has no application to the present facts.
7. In the present case, the petitioner claims that he had intimated change in address and no demand letter was received at the changed address to enable him to make the payment. Petitioner has failed to furnish any details or prima facie proof of the change of address being intimated to respondents. Significantly, it may be noticed, even the present petition has been filed with the address as originally given at the time of Registration. The respondents have consistently been sending correspondence at the registered address of the petitioner, which was not responded to. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed.
