R C Bansal vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 2137 Del

37
$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+      W.P.(C) 13759/2009

%                               Judgment Delivered on: 21.04.2011

R C BANSAL                                       ..... Petitioner
                     Through:   Mr.N.Kinra, Advocate

                     versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY               ..... Respondent
              Through: Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate.

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

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

G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

1. Rule. With the consent of counsel for the parties, present petition

is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. The necessary facts to be noticed for the disposal of the petition

are that the petitioner had booked an MIG flat under NPRS 1979

Scheme on 20.06.1980. In the application form the petitioner had

mentioned his address as 228, Hari Nagar, Ashram, Delhi. The

petitioner changed his address from Hari Nagar to House No.36,

Sector-12, Noida, District-Ghaziabad, U.P. and informed the DDA by

a communication which was received by the DDA vide diary

No.42467 dated 8.7.1986, copy of which along with endorsement

has been filed as annexure P-2 to the petition. Subsequently

petitioner by a communication dated 7.2.1994, which was received

by the DDA vide diary No.296. Petitioner again requested the DDA

to change his residential address in their record. A photocopy of

the ration card was also duly annexed with this communication. A

reminder dated 22.09.1994 was also addressed to the DDA, which

was received by the DDA vide diary no.5149.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite three letters

addressed to the DDA informing them about change of his address

and the letters having been duly received by them, the demand-

cum-allotment letter with block dates 04.07.1996 to 13.07.1996

was issued to the petitioner at the old address. By communication

dated 14.12.1999 which was received by the DDA vide diary

No.875 addressed to the Director (Housing), DDA, petitioner

brought to the notice of the respondent that despite three letters,

he had received no response from the DDA. Mr.Kinra, submits that

the petitioner was shocked to see an advertisement in the

"Hindustan Times" dated 11.11.1999 wherein it was stated that

priority number 26334 in MIG category had already been covered

by the DDA. The petitioner informed the DDA that he has not

received any allotment from the DDA. Since no reply was received,

the petitioner again wrote to the DDA on 11.02.2000, which

communication was received by DDA vide diary No.85. Vide

communication dated 3.1.2001 DDA informed the petitioner that

flat No.269, Sector A-10, Pocket-4, Ground Floor was allotted to him

in the draw of lot held on 29.03.1996 and the same had been

cancelled. Cancellation letter was also sent on 08.10.1996.

Petitioner again addressed a letter dated 20.02.2001, which was

received by the DDA vide diary no.688, in which petitioner

reiterated his having sent various letters to the DDA about change

of address. This was followed up by another communication dated

6.10.2002, however, no satisfactory response was received.

Mr.Kinra, submits that petitioner had also filed copies of the

receipts, evidencing his visits to the DDA on 26.08.2004 and on

11.03.2005, however, in the absence of any suitable response the

petitioner addressed a legal notice to the DDA on 27.04.2009 and

in response to the legal notice, petitioner received a letter from the

Office of the DDA on 15.06.2009, informing the counsel for the

petitioner that the case of the petitioner had been placed before

the Committee and a meeting would be held shortly and decision

would be communicated to him. Since no information was received

with regard to the Minutes of Meeting, the petitioner made an

application under Right to Information Act, on 15.10.2009 with

regard to the status of his case and in response thereto vide

communication dated 12.11.2009 petitioner was informed that his

case was under active consideration. Since the petitioner did not

receive any further communication, present writ petition was filed.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is

fully covered by the wrong address policy of the DDA and since the

petitioner approached the DDA within four years, petitioner would

be entitled to the benefit of the policy and would be entitled to the

flat at the same rates, as per the demand-cum-allotment letter.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Usha Sakia Vs. DDA

[WP(C)No.266/2007], Hirdayapal Singh Vs. DDA

[WP(C)No.15002/2006] and also on a recent decision rendered in

the case of Bhupinder Singh Vohra Vs. DDA [WP(C)No.2624/2010].

In support of his submission that petitioner would be covered by

the policy of the DDA, petitioner has placed on record a copy of the

office order dated 25.02.2005 as annexure P-22 with the paper

book. Mr.Kinra, submits that in accordance with this office order in

case the applicant approaches DDA within a period of four years

from the date of issue of demand-cum-allotment letter, on account

of wrong address, he is to be allotted a flat at the old costs

prevalent at the time when the priority of the allottee matured.

5. Original file of the case is produced by Mr.Birbal, advocate in court

today. He submits that letter dated 08.07.1986 filed at page 11 of

the paper book, letter dated 07.02.1994 filed at page 12 of the

paper book and letter dated 22.09.1994 filed at page 14 of the

paper book, are available in the original record of the DDA,

however, at the time when the demand-cum-allotment letter was

issued in favour of the petitioner in the year 1996, the aforesaid

letters were not on record. He further submits that a vigilance

enquiry was conducted, however, no finding has been returned on

the ground that this is an administrative matter.

6. Mr.Birbal, also submits that original file which has been produced in

the Court shows that three letters were not available in the file

when the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued. He submits

that it should be presumed that petitioner has placed photocopies

of these communications on record.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and duly considered the rival

contentions. The petitioner had issued not one but three letters to

the DDA informing DDA with regard to the change of his residence.

In the absence of any cogent explanation with regard to receipt

and diary no of all the three communications and also in the

absence of any vigilance report from the DDA, it is to be presumed

that all the three communications (communications dated

8.7.1986, 7.2.1994 and 22.09.1994) which bear the stamp and

receipt of DDA and also the diary number, were issued by the

petitioner and were received by the DDA. Accordingly, case of the

petitioner is covered by the wrong address policy of the DDA dated

25.02.2005. Petitioner would be entitled to an allotment of a flat in

the same area, if available, at the old cost prevalent at the time

when his priority had matured and no interest would be charged, as

the petitioner had approached DDA within four years of the date of

allotment. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed, leaving the

parties to bear their own costs. Let the demand-cum-allotment

letter be issued in favour of the petitioner within six weeks from

receipt of this order. Counsel for the petitioner submits that

petitioner will make the payment within a period of six weeks

thereafter positively.

8. Petition is allowed, in above terms.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

April 21, 2011 „ssn‟