Delhi Development Authority vs Sukhjinder Singh Bhatia
2010 Latest Caselaw 1627 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                          Reserved on: March 18th, 2010

                                           Decided on: March 23rd, 2010

+     LPA 195/2010

      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY             ..... Appellant
                   Through: Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocate.

                   versus

      SUKHJINDER SINGH BHATIA                           ..... Respondent
                    Through: None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA


      1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                  Yes.

      2. To be referred to Reporter or not?               Not necessary.

      3. Whether the judgment should be reported
         in the Digest?                                   Not necessary.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

CM No.4996/2010 (condonation of delay) & LPA No.195/2010

1. The present appeal is accompanied by an application for condonation of

delay, wherein, the Appellant states that the delay of 190 days in filing of the

appeal occurred as the file got tagged up with the other files of the Appellant

and it could not be noticed that the same was for drafting of the appeal. It is

only when the notice in a contempt petition was received, it was found that the

appeal was not drafted, as it was tagged along with the other files of the

Appellant authority, causing delay in filing of the present appeal. In view of

the facts stated, the delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

2. Ironically, the Appellant seeks condonation of delay in filing of the

appeal, however, on merits contends that the Respondent's writ petition

should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on delay

and laches.

3. In the present appeal the Appellant challenges the order dated 27 th July,

2009 wherein the writ petition being WP(C) No. 5333/2008 filed by the

Respondent was allowed with the following directions:

"Since the petitioner approached the Respondents in 2004 and it is contended that a draw of lots for LIG flat took place in 2004, therefore, the name of the petitioner ought to have been included in the draw of lots of LIG flats in 2004. Since the name of the petitioner has not been included in the draw of lots, the petitioner is entitled for allotment of LIG flat pursuant to the draw of lots to be held by the Respondent.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the mini draw/draw of lots within three months for the

LIG category and issue demand-cum-allotment letter within four weeks after the draw of lot of the LIG flat. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner shall be liable to pay the cost of the flat as per the rate for the allotment of LIG flat in 2004 since the petitioner has approached in 2004. This fact is also not denied by the counsel for DDA though under the policy the petitioner is liable to pay the rates of 1993 as draw of lot for flats had taken place in 1993, the letter of which was sent at wrong address. The learned counsel says that the rates of allotment of 2004 are higher than that of 1993. The Appellant shall also be liable to pay simple interest at 12% till date. On issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter and compliance of all the commercial formalities, the petitioner shall be entitled for possession of the flat forthwith. The name of the petitioner is to be considered for the allotment of the flats in the same zone for which the allotment was made and cancelled on account of non-service of demand-cum- allotment letter at the wrong address."

4. The case of the Respondent in the writ petition was that he booked a

LIG flat vide registration No.25527 under NPRS 1979 scheme. The address

of the Respondent given in the application form was "Flat No.235, Pocket-3,

Paschim Puri." Pursuant to the draw of lots a demand-cum-allotment letter

was sent by the Appellant at the wrong address i.e. Flat No.23, Pocket 3, Janta

Flats, Paschim Puri, Delhi-3, instead of the abovementioned address. As the

location of two addresses is quite different, the Respondent was not delivered

the demand-cum-allotment letter. The Respondent, therefore, could not

deposit the amount demanded. It is contended that since demand-cum-

allotment letter was received back unserved, the DDA ought to have sent the

letter at the correct address and having not done so, cannot take the plea of

delay and laches. The Respondent thereafter made representations relying on

the policy of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) as per which in cases

where the allotment letters are sent at the wrong address and subsequently

when the allottee is allotted a flat, on account of mistake of DDA, the same

price as per the original demand was to be charged from him. The Respondent

clearly substantiated his contentions by demonstrating that on his continuous

representations, for the first time the DDA responded in December, 2004

when he was also given a copy of this demand-cum-allotment letter which had

the wrong address. The Respondent thus claiming parity to the decisions

rendered in writ petitions being WP(C) No. 10983/2004, WP (C)

No.2107/2007 and WP (C) No.4503/2006 and in terms of the policy, seeks

allotment.

5. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there was a delay of

nearly 15 years in filing the writ petition and in view of the delay and laches,

the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained this writ petition.

Relying on the demand-cum-allotment letter issued on 27th December,

1993/31st December, 1993, it was contended that the last date of deposit of the

cost of the flat and the required document was 31 st March, 1994 and the

Respondent having failed to adhere thereto, he is not entitled to any relief.

The Appellant though contested the pleas of the Respondent before the

learned Single Judge, however could not substantiate the same as the file of

the DDA relating to this case is missing and despite imposition of costs by the

learned Single Judge the same could not be traced. The Appellant could also

not substantiate their contentions of the correspondences showing the proof

that the Respondent had received the demand-cum-allotment letter in the

absence of the file, which is not traceable.

6. It is in this backdrop that the learned Single Judge held that the name of

the Respondent ought to have been included in the draw of lots in 2004 and

since his name was not included in the said draw of lots, the Respondent is

entitled for allotment of LIG flat pursuant to the draw of lots to be held by the

Respondent.

7. We find the order of the learned Single Judge to be unexceptionable.

There is no merit in the appeal. Consequently, the same is dismissed.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE

(MADAN B.LOKUR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MARCH 23, 2010 mm