Ved Prakash Changia vs Delhi Development Authority & ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 1724 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT              OF DELHI      AT   NEW DELHI
1.
+   W.P.(C) 84/2007

VED PRAKASH CHANGIA                       ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.

                   versus

     D.D.A. & ANR.                           ..... Respondent
                        Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate.

     CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                            ORDER

% 28.04.2009

1. The petitioner Ved Prakash Changia was registered with DDA for allotment of land under the Rohini Residential Plotted Scheme, 1981 (Rohini Scheme).

2. There was delay in allotment and in the meanwhile DDA floated Narela Housing Scheme, 2002 (Narela Scheme) which was open from 15.05.2002 to 14.06.2002.

3. Persons registered under the Rohini Scheme could on the basis of their registration and without payment, exercise option and apply under the Narela Scheme. The relevant clause of the Narela scheme reads:

" I. SCHEME

This scheme is called „Narela Housing Scheme, 2002 of Delhi Development Authority‟. Under this scheme applications are invited from the General Public for allotment of HIG, MIG, LIG/EHS and Janta Flats for any category. The waiting registrants holding a registration with DDA under New pattern Housing Scheme-1979, Ambedkar Avas Yojna-1989, Janta Housing Scheme-1996 and Rohini Residential plotted Scheme-1981 can also apply under this scheme.

The interested persons are free to have the option to apply for any category of flat as per their requirement and affordability irrespective of their registration under any category. The successful waiting registrants of old schemes applying for allotment of flat under this scheme will forfeit their right for further allotment of flat or plot under the relevant scheme, they are already registered with DDA.

No preference for Pocket/floor or type can be exercised by the applicant and no request to change for pocket, floor or type will be entertained by the DDA."

(emphasis supplied)

4. Thus the registrants under the old schemes applying under Narela Scheme upon allotment forfeited their right for further allotment in the relevant old scheme under which they were already registered. Petitioner availing the benefit of the above said clause applied and opted for allotment of a flat under the Nerala Scheme. In the draw of lots for the Narela scheme held on 05.07.2002, the petitioner was successful and MIG flat No.- 24, Sector-A-9, Pocket-3, Narela was allotted to him. Thus the petitioner‟s registration under the Rohini Scheme was cancelled/forfeited.

5. The petitioner by his letter dated 25.07.2002 informed DDA that due to financial problem he was not inclined to take allotment of aforesaid flat and his registration under the Rohini scheme might be kept intact. DDA by their letter dated 14.08.2002 in categorical terms informed the petitioner that in view of his request the allotment flat at Narela is cancelled. By further letter dated 16.09.2002 the petitioner was asked to submit original papers within 15 days and attend the office for refund of the registration deposit made by him under the Rohini scheme. The petitioner did not challenge and question letter dated 16.09.2002 and accepted the same. No reply was sent to this letter. The petitioner therefore was aware that his registration under the Rohini scheme stands forfeited and cancelled.

6. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon demand cum allotment letter dated 02-08-2004 to 06.08.2004 issued by DDA stating interalia that petitioner has been allotted a plot in Rohini Phase IV Residential scheme. It is apparent that the said demand cum allotment letter was issued by the DDA under a mistake that the petitioners‟ registration under the Rohini Scheme was valid and had not been cancelled. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner had applied and availed benefit of Narela Scheme. In view of the qualifying clause of the Narela Scheme quoted above, the petitioner upon allotment of the MIG flat at Narela had forfeited his registration under the Rohini Scheme. The terms of Narela scheme are binding upon the petitioner. The right of petitioner to get plot/flat under Rohini scheme got forfeited, when the petitioner was successful and a flat was allotted to him in Narela scheme. The registration under the Rohini scheme cannot be revived because DDA by mistake had included the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots and had inadvertently issued demand cum allotment letter. This mistake was rectified by DDA and petitioner was informed vide letter dated 03.11.2006. The relevant portion of the said letter is reproduced below:

"......On scrutiny of records, it has been revealed that you had applied for allotment of flat in Narela against the above registration Rohini. As per terms and conditions of Narela scheme "successful waiting registrants of old scheme applying for allotment of a flat in Narela scheme will forfeit their right for further allotment of a flat or a plot in the relevant scheme they are already registered with the DDA. If the registrant opt for cancellation of allotment, the registration money deposited at the time of registration + interest minus surrender/cancellation charges will be refunded" ..........No deletion of registration could be made in the computer record which resulted allotment of the above plot to you in the draw of lot held on 26/07/04 Therefore allotment has been cancelled by the competent Authority and the premium deposited by you will be refunded to you."

7. The stand of DDA is correct. A mistake cannot confer a right. The reason is apparent. The petitioner had exercised his option and applied under the Narela scheme on the basis of registration under the Rohini scheme. He was allotted a MIG flat. Upon said allotment, the petitioner registration under the Rohini scheme stood cancelled. This was the express clause and condition on the basis of which petitioner had exercised his option. The petitioner upon allotment of a flat under the Narela scheme could not have reverted back and asked for continuation of his registration under the Rohini scheme.

Petition is dismissed. No costs.

SANJIV KHANNA,J

APRIL 28, 2009 am