Ravinder Nath Jain vs Dda
2010 Latest Caselaw 505 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+        W.P.(C) 7609/2009

                               Judgment delivered on January 29, 2010

RAVINDER NATH JAIN                                ..... Petitioner
               Through:          Mr.N.Kinra, Advocate
               versus
DDA                                               ..... Respondent
               Through:          Mr.Subhasis Saha for Ms.Manisha Tyagi,
                                 Advocate for respondent.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

               1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
                  the Judgment?         Yes
               2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes
               3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL).

    1.   Counsel for DDA had entered appearance when the matter was

         listed on the first date of hearing i.e. 20.03.2009. Thereafter the

         matter was adjourned to 13.4.2009, 25.5.2009, 17.8.2009,

         1.12.2009. On 1.12.2009 none was present on behalf of the DDA

         and this court had observed that despite time having been

         granted to file counter affidavit, neither counter affidavit has been

         filed nor anyone is present on their behalf; and subject to

         payment of costs of Rs.5000/- to be paid to the petitioner two

         weeks time was granted to file counter affidavit.       Position is no

         different today. No counter affidavit has been filed.

    2.   Counsel for DDA seeks more time to file counter affidavit.            The

         request is rejected, in view of the fact that sufficient time and

         opportunity has been granted to file counter affidavit.

    3.   The facts which have led to filing of this writ petition are that


     WP(C).NO.7609/2009                                          Page 1 of 5
      petitioner booked an MIG flat under the NPRS 1979 vide

     registration no.30097.    In the draw of lots held on 13.2.1991

     petitioner was allotted a flat bearing No.93, ground floor at

     Jahangirpuri, Delhi and an allotment letter was received by him on

     7.9.1991.    As the petitioner was not interested in this flat he

     availed of the benefit of the tail end policy and deposited 20%

     (Rs.900/- on 24.9.1991) as the registration amount.             After

     depositing the tail end charges the petitioner submitted a letter to

     the DDA dated 24.9.1991 registered by the DDA vide diary

     no.2941 dated 26.9.1991 and also intimated the change of

     address from 162, Veer Nagar, Jain Colony, Delhi to C-1/5, first

     floor, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.

4.   DDA allotted a flat bearing No.25, Second Floor, Sector-21, Pocket-

     7, Rohini, Delhi in the draw held on 31.3.2004 and sent the

     demand letter at the old address of the petitioner, despite

     information of change of address having been supplied to the

     DDA. On 10.9.2004 petitioner on one of his visits to Delhi met the

     Assistant Director and came to know about the allotment that a

     flat has been allotted to him in the draw held on 31.3.2004. The

     petitioner submitted a representation to the Assistant Director

     vide diary no.30703 dated 10.9.2004.        In the representation

     petitioner brought to the notice of the DDA that he had not

     received the demand letter and he had come to know that last

     date of payment was 4.1.2005 and he requested the Assistant

     Director to issue the demand letter by hand to him or send the

     same by post as the last date of payment was still 4 months away.


 WP(C).NO.7609/2009                                        Page 2 of 5
      Copy of this letter dated 10.9.2004 has been filed as Annexure P-5

     to this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioner that he met the

     Deputy Director again on 1.9.2005 and reiterated his request and

     also stated that the last date of payment was 4.1.2005 and the

     petitioner had made a representation on a date prior thereto for

     handing over a copy of the demand letter by hand or by post.

5.   Counsel for petitioner submits that despite the representation

     having been sent and the last date for making the payment

     having expired, the DDA did not hand over the demand letter.

     The petitioner has also filed copy of the entry receipt evidencing

     his visit to the office of the DDA on 1.9.2005. Petitioner again had

     a personal hearing with the Deputy Director on 19.4.2006 vide

     diary no.1501 wherein the petitioner again reiterated his request.

     The petitioner again met the Assistant Director on 20.6.2008 vide

     diary No.20252, requesting him to consider his case and issue a

     demand letter. The petitioner also made several representations

     including to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, Minister of Urban

     and Housing, Director of Public Grievances, Vice Chairman DDA,

     Commissioner (Housing), Deputy Director, Assistant Director DDA,

     through speed post on 19.9.2008, copy of the representation and

     speed post receipt have been placed on record.

6.   Counsel for petitioner submits that his case is fully covered by

     various decisions rendered by this Court and is also covered by

     the change of address policy dated 25.2.2005.            There is no

     opposition to this writ petition. Based on the documents placed

     on record, it is established that the petitioner had applied in 1979


 WP(C).NO.7609/2009                                           Page 3 of 5
      NPRS and deposited a sum of Rs.4500/- as far back as on

     25.9.1979.       The deposit receipt has been placed on record.

     Photocopy of challan has been placed on record showing that

     petitioner paid the cancellation charges and surrendered his first

     allotment. The petitioner has placed on record a communication

     dated 24.9.1991, the letter informing the DDA with regard to

     change of his address by diary no.2941 bearing stamp of the DDA

     of 26.9.1991, a copy of the demand letter which has been placed

     on record shows that the demand/ allotment letter was sent at the

     old address of the petitioner. Even otherwise before the last date

     for making the payment, the petitioner had by letter dated

     10.9.2004 informed the DDA that he had not received the demand

     letter and requested for a copy thereof. The petitioner thereafter

     visited the office of the DDA on 1.9.2005 which is evident from the

     receipt filed as Annexure P-6 which shows that he had visited the

     office of the DDA with regard to the status of his allotment. The

     petitioner has also placed on record copies of the letter dated

     1.9.2005, showing that the demand/ allotment letter was not

     handed over to the petitioner on his request which was made

     even prior to the last date of making the payment as per the

     demand letter.

7.   Even today there is no explanation as to why the demand letter

     was not handed over to the petitioner.     In view of the settled

     position of law as well as on the basis of office order of the DDA

     dated 25.2.2005, the present petition is allowed.       Since the

     petitioner has approached the DDA within four years from the


 WP(C).NO.7609/2009                                       Page 4 of 5
       date of issue of the demand letter at wrong address and in fact

      the petitioner had approached the DDA even before the last date

      of making the payment as per the demand letter, the DDA shall

      issue a demand letter to the petitioner with respect to the flat

      No.25 second floor, sector-21, Pocket-7, Rohini, at the same costs

      as per which the demand letter was issued. In case this flat has

      already been allotted to any other person, the name of the

      petitioner will be included in the MINI draw of lots which shall be

      conducted within a period of six weeks from today positively and

      the petitioner shall be allotted a flat in the same area if available

      and thereafter a fresh demand letter will be issued within a period

      of four weeks thereafter. Accordingly present petition is allowed

      with costs quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

CM.No.3743/2009 (STAY)

 8.   In view of order passed today in the writ petition, no order is

      called for in this application. Dismissed.


                                                         G.S. SISTANI, J.

January 29, 2010 'ssn'