Mohinder Singh vs Delhi Development Authority
2011 Latest Caselaw 2677 Del

67
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       WP(C) 1096/2011
%                               Judgment Delivered on: 19.05.2011
MOHINDER SINGH                                           ..... Petitioner
              Through :         Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary,
                                and Mr. Vikas Saini, Advs.
                    versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                      ..... Respondent
              Through : Mr. Arjun Pant, Advs. for respondent DDA.

        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 learned counsel for the parties writ

petition is set down for final hearing and disposal.

2. Brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present writ petition, are

that petitioner had applied to the DDA under New Pattern

Registration Scheme, 1979, for allotment of a LIG (Lower Income

Group) flat. At the time of registration, petitioner had mentioned

his residential address in the column provided in the application

form, being Flat No.A/107, Raghubir Nagar, Nazafgarh Road, New

Delhi. Since, till the end of the year 2002 no allotment has been

made to the petitioner, the petitioner had shifted from Flat

No.A/107, Raghubir Nagar, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi, to M-18,

Gali No.2, New Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. Admittedly,

the petitioner did not inform the DDA about the change of address.

Meanwhile, as the priority of the petitioner had matured his name

was included in the draw, which was held in the year 2000, he was

allotted a LIG flat bearing No.171 (2nd floor), Pocket 13, Dwarka,

New Delhi, and an demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him

at the residential address provided in the application form i.e. Flat

No.A/107, Raghubir Nagar, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi. Since the

petitioner had shifted his residence, the allotment letter was not

received by him and the same was returned back to the DDA

undelivered. This has led to automatic cancellation of the allotment

made in favour of the petitioner as he did not make the necessary

deposit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after waiting till

2010 and not having received any letter/intimation from the DDA,

the petitioner visited the office of the DDA and also attended a

public hearing where he learnt that he had been allotted a flat as

far back as in the year 2000 and which allotment stood cancelled

on account of non-payment by him. Counsel further submits that

thereafter on 27.10.2010, petitioner made a representation to the

DDA requesting them to allot an alternate flat to him since the DDA

had not followed their own policy and did not send the demand-

cum-allotment letter at all the addresses available in their file in

case the initial demand letter sent was returned undelivered.

Representation made by the petitioner did not find favour with the

DDA, which has led to the filing of the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that in the application

form, a copy of which has been filed on record by the DDA along

with the counter affidavit, the petitioner has not mentioned the

occupational address and instead only mentioned 'service' in the

column provided for occupational address in the application form,

however, the petitioner along with the application form had

enclosed the following annexures:

              (i)     Income certificate;

              (ii)    Challan form;

              (iii)   Option form;

              (iv)    SC/ST Certificate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the income

certificate, which was filed along with the application form, and

which would form part of the application form, the occupational

address of the petitioner was mentioned and in the year 2003 the

petitioner was working in the same school, which had provided the

salary certificate to the petitioner.

6. While relying upon in the case of Sudesh Kapoor v. DDA,

W.P.(C)No.8174/2006 and Hirdayapal Singh v. DDA,

w.p.(c)No.15002/2006, learned counsel for the petitioner has

strenuously argued before this Court that DDA should have sent

the demand-cum-allotment letter at the addresses available in their

file once the initial letter addressed to the petitioner was returned

back undelivered.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had

applied a flat in the LIG category and has waited all these years in

the hope of getting a roof over his head and his family and in case

a harsh view is taken of the matter the petitioner would not be in a

position to fulfill his dreams.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed this petition

primarily on the ground that DDA cannot be faulted as the

petitioner has been careless and callous in filling up the application

form for allotment of LIG flat. Counsel further submits that the

application form has clearly provided two columns - one for

residential address and the other for occupational address. Counsel

next submits that above judgments relied upon by counsel for the

petitioner would show that the facts of those cases do not apply to

the facts of the present case as in those cases both the addresses

were provided by the applicant in the application form and, thus,

DDA was bound by its own policy dated 25.2.2004, as per which, in

case the demand letter is not sent at the alternate address and the

allottee approaches the DDA within four years the allotment is to

be made in favour of the allottee at the rate in the demand letter

and in case allottee approaches the DDA after four years DDA is

entitled to charge simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

Counsel next submits that even otherwise the DDA had published a

notice in all the leading newspapers informing the public at large

giving details of successful allottees and thus no further notice was

required to be sent to the petitioner.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in turn has submitted that the

aforesaid policy would be applicable to the facts of this case as well

and the petitioner would be ready to pay 12% simple interest as

per the policy of the DDA dated 25.2.2005.

10. I have heard counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the

petition as also the annexures filed along with the petition. The

basic facts are not in dispute that in the year 1979 the petitioner

had applied for a flat in the LIG category under New Pattern

Registration Scheme. In the application form the petitioner only

mentioned his residential address and instead of mentioning the

occupational address in the column provided in the application

form he mentioned 'service'. The priority of the petitioner matured

only in the year 2003 i.e. after a gap of 24 years.

11. The last contention raised by counsel for the respondent is

addressed first in view of the fact that this Court has taken a

consistent view that a general notice in all the leading newspapers

published is in fact no notice at all as it is not expected that people

would be looking at the public notices each day when the

allotments are not made sometimes for twenty to twenty five

years. This argument of the DDA already stands rejected and the

same is rejected once again.

12. Even otherwise, it has been noticed that after making the

applications some of the allottees after endlessly waiting either

after retirement go back to their villages or more to go their home

towns where they do not have the benefit of a national daily of

Delhi.

13. In the case of Hirdayapal Singh (supra), applicant (petitioner in the

case) had mentioned only one address in the application form, but

subsequently he informed the DDA about his permanent address

and the court was of the view that once demand letter was

returned undelivered the DDA should have sent the demand letter

at all the addresses available in the file of the DDA. To my mind

the case of the petitioner is on a better footing as at the time of

registering herself for allotment of a LIG flat the petitioner along

with the application form had enclosing his salary certificate issued

by the school where the petitioner was working, filing of a copy of

the salary certificate was a mandatory requirement and thus has to

be considered to be a part of the form. No doubt the petitioner has

been careless in filling up the application form and not providing his

occupational address in the column provided, but the file of the

DDA would comprise not more than seven pages, which include

four annexures and two pages of the application form. The DDA

should have acted in the interest of the allottee, a common citizen,

who has been waiting for more than two and a half decades for a

flat in his name. In such a situation when the allotment letter was

received back, DDA was duty bound to go through the entire file to

ascertain if any other address was available and the demand-cum-

allotment letter should have been sent at the occupational address

which was available in file of the DDA. The common man must

derive the benefit of the policy dated 25.2.2005 and in my view in

the facts of the present case, once demand-cum-allotment letter

was received back to the DDA undelivered, the DDA should have

carefully perused the file and ensured that demand-cum-allotment

letter is sent at all the addresses available in the file.

14. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. DDA is

directed to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the

petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order with 12 %

simple interest on the amount of the initial demand made by the

DDA.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

MAY 19, 2011 'msr'