Delhi High Court
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Delhi Development Authority on 10 November, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#2
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 716/2010
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rajesh Gogna with Ms. Jyoti
Kalra and Ms. Anupam Jha,
Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Anusuya Salwan with
Ms. Renuka Arora, Advocates
Reserved on: 1st November, 2010
% Date of Decision: 10th November, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J :
CM 17873/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM 17872/2010
This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the
appeal.
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal
is condoned.
Accordingly, the application is disposed of.
LPA 716/2010
1. Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment dated 14th May, 2010 whereby the learned Single Judge has
dismissed the appellant's writ petition being W.P.(C) 293/2009.
2. The relevant facts of the present case are that the appellant made
an application dated 24th September, 1979 for registration of allotment
of flat/house under the 4th Registration Scheme floated by respondent-
DDA. According to appellant, he shifted his residence in the year 1983
from C-73 (121), South Moti Bagh, New Delhi to 81-B, Pocket-3,
Phase-I, Mayur Vihar, Delhi. It is the appellant's case that intimation
of change of address was duly given to the respondent-DDA. It is
further the appellant's case that in the year 1992, the appellant again
shifted his residence from Mayur Vihar to 240, Suryaniketan, Opp.
Anand Vihar, Delhi. It is also the appellant's case that the respondent-
DDA was informed about the second change of address vide letters sent
by UPC dated 11th April, 1996 and 21st October, 1996. However, the
respondent-DDA has disputed receipt of any information with regard to
second change of address.
3. On the other hand, it is the respondent-DDA' case that since the
appellant did not respond either to the demand-cum-allotment letter
with Block dates 26th December, 2001 - 31st December, 2001 or to the
show cause notice dated 4th October, 2002, the respondent-DDA
cancelled the allotment of the flat in Phase-2, Pocket A, Sector 17,
Dwarka, New Delhi.
4. Since the appellant was aggrieved with the said cancellation, he
filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 293/2009 contending therein that the
petitioner-appellant was never informed either about allotment or about
show cause notice prior to the cancellation of flat allotted to appellant.
However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ
petition by observing as under :-
"7. I have heard counsel for the parties. It is the case
of the petitioner that he applied to the DDA in the year
1979 for allotment of a flat/house for residential
purposes and he also deposited Rs. 4500/-. The
petitioner shifted his residence from South Moti Bagh to
Mayur Vihar in the year 1983-84 and he duly informed
the DDA about the change of his address. In the year
1992 he again shifted from Mayur Vihar to Anand Vihar
and he informed the DDA by letters dated 11.04.1996
and 24.10.1996 which was duly sent under UPC. In the
year 2000 he enquired from the DDA with regard to his
allotment. It has been submitted by counsel for the
petitioner that petitioner learnt that the demand-cum-
allotment letter was sent to the petitioner at the address
of Mayur Vihar. It has also been submitted that the
demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at incomplete
address, as Mayur Vihar has three phases and the DDA
has not mentioned the phase number, and thus petitioner
would be covered under the wrong address policy of the
DDA. I find no force in the submission made by the
counsel for the petitioner as the original record has been
produced in the court, which shows that demand-cum-
allotment letter was sent at the address, as intimated by
the petitioner to the DDA. The address notified to the
DDA did not mention the phase number. The original
file also reveals that the demand-cum-allotment letter as
well as show cause notice was issued to the petitioner at
the address mentioned in the communication dated
05.04.1983 addressed by the petitioner to the DDA.
Original record also reveals that demand-cum-allotment
letter was duly received on behalf of the petitioner, which
is evident from the speed post acknowledgement which
has been placed on record. In view of the documents
placed on record, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner. There is no infirmity in the order of
cancellation passed by the DDA. The petition is
accordingly, dismissed."
5. Mr. Rajesh Gogna, learned counsel for the appellant has
reiterated before us that the cancellation of allotment of the flat was bad
in law as appellant had not been informed about the initial allotment at
his new address at 240, Suryaniketan, Opp. Anand Vihar, Delhi, even
though the respondent-DDA had been intimated about the second
change of address. He further submitted that the respondent-DDA is
bound in law to issue the allotment letter by way of a registered A.D.
letter.
6. Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for respondent-DDA has
referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the DDA before the learned
Single Judge. The relevant portion of the said affidavit reads as under:-
"3. That the petitioner vide letter dated 14.07.2008
intimated that he had not received the allotment letter
and further stated that petitioner shifted his residence to
240, Suryaniketan, Delhi-110092 in the year 1991 and
gave the intimation of change of address through
registered post in 1995-1996. Here it is pointed out that
no change of address letter was received from the
petitioner."
7. Ms. Salwan has also produced the original file maintained by the
respondent-DDA pertaining to allotment of flat to appellant.
8. Having heard the parties and having perused the record, we are of
the view that the solitary issue that requires to be determined in the
present proceedings is as to whether respondent-DDA had intimated the
demand-cum-allotment as well as the show cause notice to appellant at
the correct address prior to cancellation of allotment.
9. From a perusal of the record, we find that there is no intimation
by the appellant to respondent-DDA about the second change of
address prior to the cancellation of allotment. Moreover, we also find
that not only the demand-cum-allotment letter and show cause notice
were sent to the Mayur Vihar address furnished by the appellant but the
same had also been received by one Ms. Janak Kumari on behalf of the
appellant.
10. Consequently, we are of the view that the action of respondent-
DDA is fair and reasonable. Accordingly, the present appeal, being
devoid of merit, is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
NOVEMBER 10, 2010
rn
