Ami Chand vs Dda
2011 Latest Caselaw 2730 Del

31.
*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+       W.P.(C) 6764/2010

%                               Judgment Delivered on: 20.05.2011

AMI CHAND                                                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through :   Mr. S.K. Rungta, Adv.

                    versus

DDA                                                       ..... Respondent
                    Through :   Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.

        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, writ petition is set

down for final hearing and disposal.

2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the writ petition, are that in the

year 1979 DDA has floated a scheme for allotment of LIG flat under

the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. The petitioner

registered himself under the said scheme for allotment of a LIG flat

and a priority no.52877 was allotted to him. On 25.2.2005 DDA had

issued a fresh policy for allotment of flats in those cases where

either the demand letter was sent at the wrong address or where

the priority of the registrant was missed in the matter of allotment

of flats in the implementation of the judgment passed in

W.P.(C)No.19095/2004.

3. The case of the petitioner is that since 30.5.1980, he has not been

allotted a LIG flat by the DDA. The petitioner after a long wait of 27

years approached the DDA in order to ascertain the status of his

application, when he was informed by the officials of the DDA to

submit certain documents, which were submitted by the petitioner

on 30.11.2006. The petitioner was again called upon to submit

certain documents, which were submitted by the petitioner on

9.7.2009. On 13.7.2009 Assistant Director, DDA, had issued a

communication to the petitioner requiring him to visit his office on

any working day for verification of genuineness of the documents.

The petitioner is stated to have visited the office of Assistant

Director on 23.7.2009.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent DDA submits that original

record has been received. Counsel further submits that the only

document available in the file is a computer printout, which shows

that registration of the petitioner has been cancelled on 23.3.2006.

Counsel further submits that even otherwise at present the

allotment of LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme,

1979, stands closed vide a notification published in leading

newspapers and, thus, the case of the petitioner can only be

considered for refund of the registration money.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the

pleadings filed. The basic facts of the case are not in dispute that

petitioner had registered himself under the New Pattern

Registration Scheme for allotment of a LIG flat and a priority

no.52877 was given to him. On 25.2.2005 DDA had issued a fresh

policy for allotment of flats in those cases where either the demand

letter was sent at the wrong address or where the priority of the

registrant was missed in the matter of allotment of flats in the

implementation of the judgment passed in W.P.(C)No.19095/2004.

6. Notice in this petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed

by the respondent DDA. While the stand taken by the respondent in

the counter affidavit is that the petitioner had requested the DDA

for cancellation of his registration on 16.2.2006 and the

cancellation was approved by the DDA on 21.3.2006, however,

counsel for the petitioner submits that at no point of time the

petitioner ever made any request to DDA for cancellation of his

registration for allotment of LIG flat under the New Pattern

Registration Scheme. DDA is unable to produce any document or

letter addressed by the petitioner to DDA seeking cancellation,

whereas on the other hand DDA had called upon the petitioner on

various dates to produce documents. In fact by communication

dated 13.07.2009 the petitioner was called upon to provide various

documents for verification of his genuineness. In the absence of

any document available with the DDA the stand taken by the DDA

cannot be accepted. Since the petitioner applied under the New

Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, of the DDA in the year 1980

with the propriety no.58277, there is nothing on record to show

that any allotment was made in favour of the petitioner or that the

petitioner has failed to deposit the amount as demanded by the

DDA. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of the

fault on the part of the DDA.

7. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. Since

the petitioner had approached DDA in the year 2006 and the public

notice was issued by the DDA somewhere in the year 2007 the

petitioner would be entitled for allotment of a LIG flat under the

New Pattern Registration Scheme, under the policy of Missing

Priority Cases, at the old cost and as per the policy of the DDA.

Accordingly, the name of the petitioner shall be included by the

DDA in a mini draw, which shall be held within eight weeks from

the date of receipt of this order and thereafter a demand letter

shall be issued to the petitioner within six weeks.

8. Petition stands disposed of in view of above.

G.S. SISTANI, J.

MAY 20, 2011 'msr/2'