Bhagat Singh Manral vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 3075 Del

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         Writ Petition (Civil) No.9724/2006

%                           Date of Decision: 10.08.2009

Bhagat Singh Manral                                         .... Petitioner
                           Through Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate

                                     Versus

Delhi Development Authority                        .... Respondent
                    Through Mr.Yeshu Jain, Advocate


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR

1.     Whether reporters of Local papers may be                YES
       allowed to see the judgment?
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?                  NO
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in              NO
       the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

1. The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent to issue

allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of Flat No.112, Third Floor,

Sector 9, Pocket 2, Dwarka at the cost prevalent in the year 1994, when

his priority had matured.

2. The petitioner contended that he is a senior citizen and got

himself registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for

allotment of a MIG flat. The registration number of the petitioner is

22282. The petitioner asserted that he had given his communication

address as C/o The Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company

Limited, 15-16, Scindia House, K.G.Marg, New Delhi and his residential

address as G-293, Sriniwaspuri, New Delhi.

3. The plea of the petitioner is that there was a scheme for out of

turn allotment under which the petitioner was eligible and, therefore, he

corresponded with the respondent pursuant to which a communication

dated 10th June, 1992 was received from the DDA at the new address of

the petitioner at 104, North Avenue, MP Flats, New Delhi-110001.

Consequent to the letter dated 10th June, 1992 from the DDA for out of

turn allotment, a communication dated 24th June, 1992 was sent which

was duly received by the respondent where also the address of the

petitioner was mentioned as 104, North Avenue, MP Flats, New Delhi-

110001.

4. According to the petitioner though the changed address, 104,

North Avenue, MP Flats, New Delhi-110001 was available with the

respondent, he however sent another letter dated 26th August, 2008

categorically indicating the change of his old address, which letter was

duly received by the respondent as is apparent from the endorsement

made on the copy of the letter bearing filing No.192 OTA dated 26th

August, 1998.

5. The plea of the petitioner is that in 1998, on enquiry about the

status of his registration, it transpired that the petitioner was allotted a

flat bearing No.504, Pocket 3, Sector 19, Dwarka, New Delhi according

to his priority position and an allotment-cum-demand letter was sent at

the old address of the petitioner in place of his address 104, North

Avenue, MP Flats, New Delhi-110001.

6. The petitioner consequently protested against cancellation of his

allotment made in 1994 on account of sending the demand-cum-

allotment letter at his old address by his protest letter dated 4th

September, 1998 which was duly received by the respondent. The

petitioner thereafter submitted more representations to the respondent

for allotment.

7. On representations being made by the petitioner his name was

included in the draw of lots in September, 2005, however, again

according to the petitioner, the demand-cum-allotment letter was not

sent. The petitioner's assertion is that he came to know in January,

2006 about inclusion of his name in the draw held on September, 2005,

however, the intimation was not sent at his correct address. The

petitioner again made representation but his request for allotment of

flat has been declined on the ground that the petitioner had not applied

within four years from the date of earlier allotment in 1994. The

petitioner thereafter, has filed the present petition seeking allotment of

flat which was drawn in his favor in 2005 at the rates prevalent in 1994

when his priority had matured but the intimation was sent at the wrong

address on the basis of the policy of the respondent.

8. The writ petition is contested by the respondent contending inter-

alia that the petitioner in his application form had mentioned his

residential address as c/o.Sh.O.N.Sharma, G-293, Sriniwaspuri, New

Delhi and had also furnished another address as occupational address

at c/o.The Oriental Fire and Insurance Company Limited, 15-16,

Scindia House, K.G.Road, New Delhi and the intimation was sent to the

petitioner at the said address. It is also contended that on 9th April,

1992 the respondent had received a letter forwarded by the office of Lt.

Governor, Delhi to consider the case of the petitioner for an out of turn

allotment of flat. It is stated that though the address of the petitioner in

the said letter was written as 104, M.P.Flats, North Avenue, New Delhi,

however, for change of address in the record, the procedure is to move a

proper application intimating the answering respondent about the new

address along with the previous one along with the documentary proof.

In the circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner had not

intimated the answering respondent regarding his change of address to

be carried out in the official records for further correspondence.

Regarding out of turn allotment and MIG branches it is contended that

the address intimated to out of turn allotment branch is not the address

communicated to MIG branch. It is, however, not denied by the

respondent that though the petitioner was allotted a MIG flat No.504,

however, the demand-cum-allotment letter dated 5.7.1994-9.7.1994

was issued to him and sent at the address, G--293, Sriniwaspuri, New

Delhi which was returned with the remarks "no such person". It is

further stated that even a show cause notice dated 29th January, 1996

was issued to the petitioner at the same address.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The respondent

cannot dispute that at the time of registering for a MIG flat on 25th

September, 1979 the petitioner had given two addresses. This is also

not disputed that in 1994 allotment was made and demand-cum-

allotment letter was issued at the address of the petitioner at

Sriniwaspuri from where it was received back with the remark "no such

person" is there. In such a case the respondent according to their own

policies had to send the intimation at the other address i.e c/o.The

Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited, 15-16, Scindia

House, K.G.Road, New Delhi. No reason is disclosed by the respondent

as to why no communication regarding allotment of flat to the petitioner

was sent at the other address mentioned in the application form when

the demand-cum-allotment letter was received back from the address of

the petitioner at `Sriniwaspuri'.

10. The contention of the respondent that out of turn allotment and

MIG Housing Department are two different departments and the

address known to one cannot be construed as the address known to

other is equally untenable and cannot be accepted. The plea of the

respondent that MIG Housing is a different department cannot be

accepted because the letter dated 14th February, 1992 was forwarded to

the MIG (housing) of the respondent which categorically stipulated that

the petitioner is a registrant of New Pattern 1979 scheme and his new

address. The letter also stipulated old registration number as 22282

and new registration number 18083 dated 23rd March, 1980 under the

MIG category on cash down basis. Even the computer number being

9817 was given. In the circumstances, the minimum which could be

done by the respondent was to check at their computer number 9817

and to incorporate the address given by the petitioner as r/o.104, North

Avenue, M.P.Flats, New Delhi. Considering the facts and circumstances

it cannot be expected that out of turn allotment department and MIG

Housing Department did not work in coordination with each other. The

respondent cannot be selective about coordination as has been sought

to be alleged by the respondent.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has categorically

emphasized that 2% of the flats constructed by the respondent are kept

reserved for allotment under the out of turn allotment category which

are for widows, handicapped, ex-servicemen, evictees and persons

under the various other categories. It is asserted that in case out of turn

allotment request is rejected, the case is transferred back to the parent

scheme of the applicant and no file is kept pending under the out of

turn allotment department. The learned counsel for the respondent is

unable to deny this. Otherwise also it appears to be rational that if a

special file is created for out of turn allotment, the same is to be sent

back to the flat allotment department, in case out of turn allotment is

rejected.

12. The incorrect stand taken by the respondent about out of turn

allotment department being separate and not knowing anything about

the MIG Housing Department is further belied by the fact that a letter

dated 10th June, 1992 was sent by the respondent requiring the

petitioner to submit the date of his retirement with proof was sent by

the respondent at the petitioner's changed address at 104, M.P.Flats,

North Avenue, New Delhi. In view of this the respondent cannot contend

that the petitioner has to follow a particular procedure to move a proper

application for change of address in the record of the respondent along

with the documentary proof. The petitioner's name was included in the

draw of lots in 1994 and he was allotted a flat, however, demand-cum-

allotment letter was not sent at the correct address of the petitioner.

Consequently, the petitioner is entitled for inclusion of his name in the

draw of lots for a MIG flat and the petitioner shall be liable to pay the

price of the flat at the rate which was prevalent in 1994. A Single Judge

of this Court in W.P(C) No.16317/2006 titled Bandana Mukherjee v.

Delhi Development Authority had held that an applicant cannot be

made to suffer for the lack of coordination between the departments of

DDA. It was held that if the respondent was aware of the changed

address on account of rejection of the request of the applicant for out of

turn allotment and the case of the applicant was transferred back to the

parent scheme, the DDA cannot be allowed to take shelter under the

pleas that the two departments are different. In the similar

circumstances the pleas of the respondent were turned down and it was

held that the applicant could not be denied an allotment.

13. The plea of the respondent that the name of the petitioner was

subsequently incorporated wrongly for draw of lots in 2005 also cannot

be accepted in the facts and circumstances. In the draw of lots held in

2005 the petitioner was allotted flat bearing No.112, 3rd floor, Sector 9,

Pocket 2, Dwarka, New Delhi. The respondent again sent the

communication regarding demand-cum-allotment of the said flat at the

wrong address. The petitioner is entitled for allotment of flat and in the

circumstances the respondent cannot be permitted to contend that the

inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held in

September, 2005 was not correct and/or was not according to the

policy dated 25th February, 2005. On a perusal of the policy dated 25th

February, 2005 it is apparent that the policy was for those applicants

who had intimated the change of address but which was not recorded

by the DDA erroneously and the demand letter were sent at wrong/old

address and the allottee had approached DDA. The draw of lots was

held in September, 2005 where the name of the petitioner was included

and he has been allotted the flat bearing No.112, 3rd Floor, Sector-9,

Pocket 2, Dwarka, New Delhi, however, the communication regarding

allotment was again sent at the wrong address and, therefore, the

petitioner has approached within a period of four years from the issue

of demand letter at the wrong address. In the circumstances, the

respondent cannot contend that the case of the petitioner is not covered

under the said policy.

14. The learned counsel for the respondent on instructions has

contended that the flat No.112, 3rd Floor, Sector-9, Pocket 2, Dwarka,

New Delhi is still lying vacant and stands in the name of the petitioner

and has not been allotted to any other person.

15. Consequently, for the foregoing reasons the writ petition is

allowed. The respondent is directed to issue a demand-cum-allotment

letter for the Flat No.112, Third Floor, Sector 9, Pocket 2, Dwarka to the

petitioner within four weeks. The demand-cum-allotment letter shall be

at the cost prevalent in the year 1994, when the priority of the

petitioner had matured and demand cum allotment letter was sent by

the respondent at the wrong address of the petitioner. The respondent

shall not be entitled to claim any interest as per its policy. On receipt of

demand-cum-allotment letter and on petitioner paying the amount

within four weeks thereafter, the possession of the flat be handed over

to the petitioner on fulfillment of other formalities for taking over the

possession of the said flat. The writ petition is disposed of in terms

hereof. Considering the facts and circumstances, the parties are,

however, left to bear their own cost.

August 10, 2009                         ANIL KUMAR, J.
'k'