Deep Chand vs Dda And Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 4048 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                         Date of decision: 19th August, 2011
+                              W.P.(C) 6040/2011

         DEEP CHAND                                              ..... Petitioner
                            Through:      Mr. Sidharth Joshi with Mr. Ajay
                                          Singh, Advocates.

                                      versus

         DDA AND ORS                                         ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Mr. Arun Birbal, Advocate.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may         Not necessary
         be allowed to see the judgment?

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?               Not necessary

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

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CM No.12189/2011 (for exemption).

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

WP(C) No.6040/2011

1. The petitioner was a registrant for an LIG Flat under the New

Pattern Housing Scheme 1979 of the respondent DDA. He was in the

year 1991 allotted a flat at Dilshad Garden. It is the case of the petitioner

that the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter of the said flat was sent by the

respondent DDA at the wrong address and was never received by the

petitioner.

2. Upon representation by the petitioner in this regard in December,

1991, his case was examined and in the draw of lots held in December,

1992, he was allotted a flat at Rohini.

3. The petitioner however represented against the cost of the flat at

Rohini being too exorbitant. The said representation of the petitioner was

rejected and the petitioner having failed to avail of the allotment, the

allotment in his favour was cancelled on 1st July, 1994. The petitioner

after remaining quiet for 14 years, in the year 2008 admittedly at the behest

of property brokers who had approached him to transfer his rights to them,

started writing to the respondent DDA and on which letters/representations

of the petitioner, it appears that again his file was opened and enquiries

made from the petitioner and the matter looked into. The respondent DDA

has vide letter dated 7th June, 2011 impugned in this petition informed the

petitioner that the allotment in favour of the petitioner having been

cancelled on 1st July, 1994, the petitioner has no right.

4. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the allotment to the

petitioner of the flat at Rohini in 1992 was contrary to the "Wrong Address

Policy" of the respondent DDA and as per which policy the petitioner was

to be allotted the flat in the same zone in which the flat was earlier allotted,

i.e. in Dilshad Garden and at the same price as was then prevailing. In

support thereof, reliance is placed on the Office Order dated 25th February,

2005 issued in pursuance to the Court order dated 16 th December, 2004 in

this regard. There is, however, nothing to show that any such policy

existed in 1992 when an alternate allotment at Rohini was made to the

petitioner. Moreover, if the petitioner was aggrieved from the alternate

allotment in the year 1992, he ought to have got the same adjudicated then

and cannot be permitted to agitate the same now after nearly 20 years.

Rather, from the narrative of the petitioner itself, it appears that the

petitioner was no longer interested in the flat and this petition has been

filed at the behest of property brokers who dabble in such documents/flats.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the Minutes of the

Meeting held on 28th July, 2009 of the Committee of the DDA and

contended that while other persons whose cases were considered in the

same meeting have been made an allotment, the petitioner has been

discriminated against.

6. The respondent DDA being a "State" is bound to reply to and

consider any communications made to it. Merely because it considers the

same, cannot re-activate the rights which have become dead by lapse of

time. As far as the Minutes of the Meeting aforesaid are concerned, the

other cases mentioned therein appear to be those that fell under the

"Wrong Address Policy". However, the case of the petitioner as per the

said Minutes also was kept for further verification/review and on which it

has been found that the allotment in favour of the petitioner stood

cancelled way back in 1994.

7. The counsel for the petitioner also relies on certain notings of prior

to 7th June, 2011 in the files of DDA to contend that comments favouring

the case of the petitioner were made at some levels. However merely

because some of the officials of the respondent DDA made notings

favourable to the petitioner would not entitle the petitioner to relief when

the said favourable notings did not find favour with the higher officials

who did not agree with the claim of the petitioner. The Apex Court in Sethi

Auto Service Station Vs. DDA (2009) 1 SCC 180 held that internal notings

are not meant for outside exposure and notings in the file culminate into an

executable order affecting the rights of the parties only when it reaches the

final decision making authority in the department, gets his approval and

the final order is communicated to the person concerned. Similarly in

Jasbir Singh Chhabra Vs. State of Punjab (2010) 4 SCC 192, it was held

that issues and policy matters which are required to be decided by the

Government are dealt with by several functionaries some of whom may

record notings on the files favouring a particular person, someone may

suggest a particular line of action; however, the final decision is required to

be taken by the designated authority keeping in view the larger public

interest. The said views were recently approved in UOI Vs. Vartak

Labour Union JT 2011 (3) SC 110.

8. Though the respondent/DDA has a policy of giving a second chance

but the petitioner having allowed the allotment in the year 1992 in his

favour to lapse cannot be said to be eligible under the said Policy also.

9. Thus, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) AUGUST 19 , 2011 pp