Delhi High Court
Balbir Singh vs Delhi Development Authority on 28 April, 2009
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9301/2007
Date of decision: 28th April, 2009
BALBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K. Mishra & Mr. G.S. Tiwari,
Advocates.
Versus
D.D.A. ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
ORDER
%
1. Admit. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the matter is
heard for final disposal.
2. The petitioner Mr. Balbir Singh on deposit of Rs.1500/- was
registered with DDA under New Pattern Scheme 1979 (HUDCO). He was
allotted registration No. 10047.
3. The petitioner has been waiting for allotment of flat for last 28
W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 1
years.
4. The petitioner has stated that in 2006 he had approached the
respondent-DDA and made enquiry about the status of his registration. At
that time, the petitioner was informed that a flat was allotted in his name
but the same was handed over to a third person unauthorisedly and no
intimation or information was given to him. When his oral request did not
yield results, he had sent legal notice dated 15th November, 2007. DDA in
response to the legal notice informed the petitioner that his request for
issue of demand-cum-allotment letter had been considered but rejected by
the competent authority as the petitioner was allotted a flat, but as there
was no response, his allotment and registration both stand cancelled. By
letter dated 2nd November, 2007, DDA called upon the petitioner to apply
for refund of the registration money, rather than ask or stake any
claim/right for allotment of flat.
5. Similar stand has been taken by the respondent-DDA in their
counter affidavit. It is stated that the petitioner was allotted LIG flat No.
366, third floor, Sector 14, Pocket 2, Phase 2, Dwarka on cash down basis
in the draw of lots held on 8th October, 1999 and demand-cum-allotment
letter with block dates 30.3.2000-13.4.2000 was sent to the petitioner at
the last available address, viz., H-16, Chest Centre and Hospital, Kilokari,
Nehru Nagar, New Delhi-110024 but the same was returned back
W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 2
undelivered. It is also stated that a general advertisement was published
in the newspaper mentioning registration numbers of successful allottees,
who had failed to respond to the letters of allotment.
6. The respondents have produced before me the original file. The file
reveals that demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 30.3.2000-
13.4.2000 was sent to the petitioner under registered post. The original
demand-cum-allotment letter has two addresses mentioned therein. The
computer print out address is as under:-
"BALBIR SINGH RAWAT
H No. 16 CHAT CONTREG HOSPATEL
KILOKHRE MEHUR NAGAR"
7. Below the said computer print out address, the following address is
written by hand:-
"H.No.- H-16, Chest Centre & Hospital
(Kilokari) Nehru Nagar, N. Delhi-24"
8. On the envelop in which the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent
the address of the petitioner was not specifically mentioned. The envelop
has on lower portion a transparent paper for reading and identifying the
address to which the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent.
9. The report of the postal authorities and the reason for non-delivery
of the letter was "address not proper". Thus, admittedly the petitioner did
not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. It is not known whether the
hand written address mentioned in the demand-cum-allotment letter was
W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 3
written prior to the dispatch of notice or after the notice was received
back. Secondly, it is also possible that only the printed/typed portion of
the address mentioned on the demand-cum-allotment letter was visible to
the postman and he was not able to read the hand written address, which
is mentioned below. In any case, the respondent-DDA in view of the
report of the postal authorities and after reading the typed printed address
should have taken precaution to resend the demand-cum-allotment letter.
Attempt to serve the demand-cum-allotment letter once again should have
been made. After all, the petitioner had enrolled himself and was
registered in a scheme, which was introduced in 1979 and after waiting for
more than 20 years in 1999, the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued
for a flat. I do not agree with the learned counsel for the respondent-DDA
that small advertisements in newspapers was sufficient notice to the
petitioner. There was no such term and condition in the original scheme.
Further, before cancellation of registration, no show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner to respond and give explanation. Cancellation of
registration is not the same as cancellation of allotment of a flat. It has
adverse consequences for a person who has deposited registration amount
and has been waiting for more than 25 years for his flat. In these
circumstances, I feel the respondents have been unfair, unjust and
arbitrary in cancelling the registration of the petitioner as the demand-
W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 4
cum-allotment letter could not be served on the petitioner by the postal
authorities.
10. The present writ petition was filed in the year 2007 and the
petitioner approached DDA on 16th July, 2007. In these circumstances, I
feel the petitioner should be charged cost of the flat as per the rate
prevalent as on 31st December, 2007. In addition, the petitioner will be
liable to pay interest @ 8% per annum on the aforesaid cost. The
petitioner's name will be included in the mini draw of lots, which should be
held within two months and he will be allotted a flat in Dwarka.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is
disposed of. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 28, 2009
VKR
W.P. (C) No. 9301/2007 Page 5
