Naval Kishore vs Delhi Development Authority
2009 Latest Caselaw 4213 Del

09
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 8074/2007

      NAVAL KISHORE                  ..... Petitioner
                         Through       Mr. V.K. Kalra, Adv.

                   versus
      D.D.A.              ..... Respondent
                         Through      Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv. for DDA.
                                      Mr. I.S.Chauhan, Adv. for UCO Bank.
                                      Mr. S.P. Kalsi, Manager, UCO Bank.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
           ORDER

% 20.10.2009

Mr. S.P. Kalsi, Manager-UCO Bank, Lawrence Road, New Delhi, is

present in Court and has been shown the original Rohini registration receipt

No.02115 dated 30th March, 1981. He states that the receipt is genuine as

per enquiries made by him and it is signed by Mr. P.L. Gupta, the then Sr.

Manager.

2. The respondent DDA has not filed affidavit in terms of the order

dated 3rd April, 2008, till today. By the said order, the said respondent was

asked to inform this Court about the internal arrangement/agreement

between the DDA and the banks, who were issued blank receipts for being

issued to the registrants. DDA was also asked to state whether blank

receipt from No.2115 was received back from UCO Bank, Lawrence Road,

WPC NO.8074-2007 Page 1 New Delhi and if the same was not received, what steps were taken by the

DDA, thereafter.

3. In view of the statement made by Mr. S.P. Kalsi, Manager-UCO Bank,

Lawrence Road, and after examining the original receipt produced before

me, I accept the claim of the petitioner. It is an unfortunate case, where the

petitioner is claiming right to allotment on the basis of the registration

made way back in the year, 1981. It is admitted that the scheme is still

being implemented and allotments are still to be made even after a delay

of 28 years. The lapse is on the part of the respondent DDA. In case, DDA

had made allotments within reasonable time, this problem would not have

arisen. On account of delay, it is not possible to call for further documents

from UCO Bank as they have destroyed and weeded out their records.

4. DDA has also not been able to file affidavit in terms of order dated

3rd April, 2008, till today. It is obvious that DDA does not have the relevant

records to show the internal arrangement/agreement between the DDA

and the banks, who had issued receipts to the registrants. DDA has also not

produced before this Court, blank receipt form No.2115 and any

correspondence exchanged between them and the bank, for failure to

return blank receipt no. 2115. In case, the said blank receipt was not

received by DDA, the assumption is that the said receipt was duly issued to

WPC NO.8074-2007 Page 2 a registrant i.e. the petitioner. UCO Bank was acting as an agent of the DDA

and it was the responsibility of the DDA to ensure that the blank or unused

receipts forms were returned to them to prevent misuse.

5. Counsel for the respondent DDA submitted that there is delay and

laches on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, he is not entitled to any

relief on the basis of the original receipt produced by the petitioner. This

argument has to be rejected. The lapse and default is on the part of the

DDA, who have failed to make allotment on the basis of 1981 scheme, till

today. Obviously the petitioner along with the other registrants has been

hoping and waiting for allotment. The petitioner could not have presumed

that as per records of DDA, he is not registered for allotment in spite of

receipt No. 2115. The petitioner, in fact approached DDA by writing letter

dated 21st May, 1994, by which he had informed about his change of

address. The said letter was received vide diary no.014922, but the

respondent, DDA did not respond to the said letter. In case, the petitioner

was not registered with the DDA, they should have immediately responded

and possibly the petitioner would have been able to collect evidence and

material in support of his claim for allotment.

5. In view of the original receipt produced before this Court, and the

statement made by Mr. S.P. Kalsi, Manager-UCO Bank, failure of DDA to

WPC NO.8074-2007 Page 3 produce blank receipt No.02115 and the correspondence exchanged

between them and UCO Bank, and in case the blank receipt form No. 2115

was not received, the writ petition is allowed and mandamus is issued to

the respondent DDA to treat the registration of the petitioner as valid. The

petitioner's name will be included in the draw of lots. The petitioner is

entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/-, which will be paid by the respondent DDA

within four weeks from the date copy of this order is received.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

      OCTOBER 20, 2009
      NA




      WPC NO.8074-2007                                                Page 4