Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Madhu Mehra on 31 January, 2011
Author: Sanjiv Khanna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA No. 115 of 2011
Delhi Development Authority ....Appellant
Through Mr. M.K. Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
Madhu Mehra .....Respondent
Through Ms. Tanuja Rawat, Advocate for
Ms. Richa Kapoor, Advocate.
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 ?
ORDER
% 31.01.2011
CM NO. 1931/2011 (for exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
CM NO. 1929/2011 (condonation of Delay)
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are
inclined to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the
delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed
of accordingly.
LPA 115/2011 & CM No. 1930/2011 (stay)
Delhi Development Authority (DDA) has assailed the order dated
7th January, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ
Petition (C) No. 3790/2007 and directing that the respondent herein,
Ms. Madhu Mehra's name would be included in the next mini draw of
lots which would be held not later than 2 months from the date of the
said order and the demand-cum-allotment letter would be issued at the
cost as per Change of Address policy of the DDA.
2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the DDA is that
the respondent had not written the letter dated 13th October, 1998
about the change of address, mutation and the entries in the original
registration Register have been manipulated later on.
3. Respondent's husband had applied for and was registered under
'NPRS 1979 Scheme' for allotment of an MIG flat. The address
mentioned was 4154, Naya Bazar, Delhi. On 1st April, 1990, husband of
the respondent passed away and she shifted to A2/105, Sector 8,
Rohini, Delhi 85.
4. On 16th March, 2000, DDA issued demand-cum-allotment letter
in favour of the husband of the respondent which was returned back
with the endorsement 'left without address'. Accordingly, the
allotment was cancelled. The respondent, in 2005, came to know about
the said allotment and made representations to the DDA.
5. The case of the respondent is that she had sent a communication
dated 13th October, 1998 enclosing therewith death certificate of her
husband and informed the change of address from 4154, Naya Bazar,
Delhi to A2/105, Sector 8, Rohini, Delhi. She had enclosed with the said
letter proof of residential address and the certificate of registration.
Along with the said letter, the respondent has placed on record a copy
of the postal receipt by which the letter dated 13th October, 1998 was
sent by registered post to the appellant-DDA. The learned Single Judge
has rightly relied upon under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act that
there is a presumption that the communication was sent to the
appellant-DDA. The appellant does not dispute the genuineness of the
postal receipt. Beside this, the original registration Register records the
name and address of the respondent. Requisite entries were made in
the said register. The contention of the appellant that these changes
have been manipulated and have been backdated is mere allegation
and ipse dixit without any substantial basis. Mere statement of the
appellant DDA that these entries have been presumably made in
connivance with their staff is an unwarranted suspicion or doubt. No
one from the staff has been named or blamed.
5. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order
passed by the learned Single Judge which is fair, just and equitable.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs. The
application for stay also stands disposed of accordingly.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
CHIEF JUSTICE
JANUARY 31, 2011
KKB
