Ram Dahin Ram vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 2245 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 277 OF 2011


%                           Judgment delivered on: 27th April, 2011.

RAM DAHIN RAM                            .... Appellant
             Through Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate.

                             VERSUS

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY            .....Respondent
             Through Mr. Monika Tripathy Pandey & Mr.
             Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

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



SANJIV KHANNA, J.:


CM No. 6032/2011

       For the reasons stated in the application, the delay in filing

the appeal is condoned.

       The application stands disposed of.

LPA NO. 277/2011

       The appellant, Ram Dahin Ram, has impugned the order

dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the learned single Judge

dismissing his Writ Petition (Civil) No. 14195/2009.

LPA No. 277/2011                                                    Page 1 of 3
 2.     The appellant was got registered under the Ambedkar

Awas Yojna, 1989 for allotment of a MIG flat. In the application

form the address mentioned was indicated as 28-H, Sector-IV,

Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-17. In 2001, the allotment matured and

the appellant was allotted flat No. 774, Sector-17, Pocket A at

Dwarka. Allotment letter was sent to the appellant but the same

was received back "undelivered". The appellant claims that in

2006, he made enquiries and came to know about the said

allotment in 2001 and also the factum that as he had not

complied with the terms of the allotment, his registration under

Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989 was cancelled.

3.     In 2009, the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition which

has been dismissed by the learned single Judge. Relying upon

several orders passed in other cases, it is submitted that the

petitioner's case is covered by the "wrong address policy" and

he is entitled to allotment. He submits that on the application

form he had written his permanent address as "11, Janpath,

New Delhi" but the allotment letter was never sent to the said

address.

4.     The learned single Judge has examined the said

contention and rejected the same after noticing that the address

"11, Janpath, New Delhi" is mentioned in a different ink and is in

LPA No. 277/2011                                           Page 2 of 3
 a different handwriting. Further, the appellant could not produce

any proof of having resided at 11, Janpath, New Delhi. It is

stated that 11, Janpath, New Delhi was address of his friend. It

is difficult to accept the said plea and contention of the appellant.

It is apparent that the appellant has succeeded in getting the

address "11, Janpath, New Delhi" added/interpolated in the

application form.

5.     In view of the aforesaid, we concur with the findings given

by the learned single Judge and the appeal is dismissed in

limine.


                                           SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE

APRIL 27, 2011 VKR