Ram Shiromani Pal vs D.D.A. & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 4284 Del

            *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       Date of decision: 2nd September, 2011
+                             W.P.(C) No.6508/2008

         RAM SHIROMANI PAL                                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through:              Mr. A.K. Thakur with Mr. Shashank
                                          Prabhakar, Advocates.

                                     Versus
         D.D.A. & ANR.                                   ..... Respondents
                            Through:      Ms. Manisha Tyagi, 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.

1. The petitioner was registered with the respondent No.1 DDA for an

LIG flat under the Registration Scheme on New Pattern of the year 1979.

It is the case of the petitioner and borne out from the records brought by

the DDA to the Court today (in compliance of direction contained in order

dated 30.03.2011) that the petitioner vide letter dated 1 st February, 1990

informed the respondent DDA that he had changed his address from A-185

Aruna Park, Rathor Niwas, Shakarpur, Delhi-110092 given in the

application for registration to B-29, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi-

110092 and asked the respondent No.1 DDA to send all future

correspondence either at the new address or to M/s. Khaitan & Partners,

Himalaya House, 7th Floor, 23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-

110001.

2. It is the case of the respondent No.1 DDA that in the draw of lots

held on 23rd March, 2006, the petitioner was allotted flat No.15, Third

Floor, Pocket-F, Sector B-2, Narela and was issued a demand-cum-

allotment letter dated 23rd June, 2006 - 3rd July, 2006. A perusal of the

records produced by the DDA shows, that the said demand-cum-allotment

letter was sent to the address of B-29, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi-

110092 only; the same was returned back undelivered to the DDA with

the remarks "no such person at the address"; that the DDA thereafter

issued a letter dated 13th July, 2006 at the address of B-29, Pandav Nagar,

Patparganj, Delhi-110092 as well at the address of M/s. Khaitan & Partners

(supra) informing that the demand-cum-allotment letter had been issued

but had been received back as aforesaid. The records produced contain no

proof of dispatch of the said letter at both the addresses but the office copy

of the said letter in the file of the DDA bears only one dispatch number i.e.

No.3779. Ordinarily, if the letter had been sent to two different addresses,

the letter would have borne two dispatch numbers. The counsel for the

respondent DDA also, on enquiry is unable to explain as to whether the

letter should have borne two dispatch numbers or not if it had been sent to

two addresses and as to why the office copy purportedly dispatched to two

addresses, bears only one dispatch number. There is no other proof on

record as to the fate of the said letter dated 13.07.2006. However, the

office notings in the file of the DDA show that upon no response being

received to the letter dated 13 th July, 2006 also, a decision was taken to

issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. The records contain a show

cause notice dated 20 th March, 2007 shown to have been sent again to the

address of B-29, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 only and not to

the address of M/s. Khaitan & Partners. The said show cause notice also

was received back with the postal remark "no such person at the address".

Thereafter cancellation letters dated 5 th June, 2007 and 26th July, 2007 are

shown to have been sent, again at the address of B-29, Pandav Nagar,

Patparganj, Delhi-110092 only.

3. It is the case of the petitioner, duly supported from the records of the

DDA that the petitioner on enquiry in February, 2008 from the office of

the DDA learnt of the allotment aforesaid in his favour and cancellation

thereof for the reason of the petitioner having not complied with the

demand-cum-allotment letter. The representations of the petitioner to the

respondent DDA for restoration of the allotment having not met with any

success, this writ petition was filed. Notice of the petition was issued.

4. The respondent No.1 DDA in its counter affidavit has pleaded that

upon the petitioner not complying with the demand-cum-allotment letter,

the allotment stood automatically cancelled in terms of the demand-cum-

allotment letter and the petitioner has no right to allotment.

5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondent DDA,

without issuing / dispatching the demand-cum-allotment letter at the

address of M.s Khaitan & Partners also intimated by the petitioner, cannot

claim cancellation. It is contended that the notice to show cause as well as

the cancellation letters also have been issued at the address of B-29,

Pandav Nagar, Patparganj, Delhi-110092 only inspite of knowledge that

the petitioner was not available at the said address. It is thus contended

that no genuine effort to communicate the demand-cum-allotment to the

petitioner was made. The receipt of the letter dated 13 th July, 2006 at the

address of M/s. Khaitan & Partners is denied.

6. The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment dated 19 th

September, 2007 in B.K. Mehta Vs. DDA 145 (2007) DLT 244 laying

down that a registrant could not be expected to remain at the same address

when the allotment was being made after a long lapse of time and DDA as

a statutory authority is enjoined to act fairly and reasonably and

reasonableness mandates taking all adequate steps to ensure

communication to the registrant of the allotment. Reference is also made

to the policy of the DDA of making allotment at the old cost subject to the

petitioner approaching the DDA within four years from the date of issue of

demand letter at the wrong address. It is contended that the petitioner had

approached the respondent No.1 DDA within two years, in the year 2008

only.

7. In this regard, it may also be noted that the respondent No.1 DDA

while rejecting the representation of the petitioner (made before instituting

the petition) did not give any reasons. The file produced by the DDA,

however, records that the representation was rejected for the reason of the

demand-cum-allotment letter having been issued at the address of the

petitioner available on the file of the DDA. The counsel for the respondent

DDA has argued that the present being not a case of a wrong address, the

policy aforesaid would not apply.

8. In the present case, the petitioner had furnished two addresses for

communication to the respondents. The respondents notwithstanding the

same issued the demand-cum-allotment letter at one of the addresses only

and even after the demand-cum-allotment letter had remained undelivered

at the said address, the same was not sent at the other address. Though, the

letter dated 13th July, 2006 is stated to have been sent at the other address

of M/s. Khaitan & Partners, but as aforesaid, the dispatch thereof to the

other address is highly doubtful. Thereafter also, the respondent No.1

DDA continued to dispatch letters to the address from which

communications were repeatedly being returned as undelivered. Had the

respondent No.1 DDA made any effort to serve the petitioner at the

address of M/s. Khaitan & Partners, the possibility of the petitioner

contacting the respondent No.1 DDA cannot be ruled out.

9. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is fully

covered by the judgment in B.K. Mehta (supra). I find that this Court in

Bhagat Singh Manral Vs. DDA MANU/DE/1803/2009 held that where

two addresses have been furnished and the demand-cum-allotment letter

dispatched to one of the addresses is received back with the remark "no

such person", DDA according to its policy is required to send the

intimation at the other address and finding the DDA not to have done so,

DDA was directed to make the allotment at the cost prevalent at the time

of initial allotment and without payment of any interest. I also find this

Court to have in Sona Devi Vs. DDA 2001 V AD (Delhi) 297 held that the

letter of allotment being an important and valuable document affecting the

rights of the allottee, is required to be sent by registered post and in the

absence of being shown to have been sent by registered post, the

petitioner's contention on oath of having not received the letter of

allotment deserves to be accepted. The same is the position here also. The

petition is therefore entitled to succeed. The respondent DDA is liable to

include the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots to be held next within

the next three months.

10. The next question which arises is as to the price. The counsel for

the petitioner contends that in accordance with the policy aforesaid, the

petitioner is liable to pay the price as prevalent in the year 2006 only.

11. The counsel for the respondent DDA opposes and contends that the

present is not a case of wrong/incorrect address but of the petitioner being

not available at the address furnished by him.

12. The aforesaid plea of the respondent DDA is to be balanced against

the default of the DDA in not making attempts to serve the petitioner at the

other address of M/s. Khaitan & Partners also furnished by the petitioner.

13. In my view, equity would be balanced by directing that though the

petitioner is liable to pay the price as prevalent in the year 2006 but

together with interest at 12% per annum till end of February, 2008 when

representation was made by the petitioner to the DDA; the petitioner is not

found liable to pay interest for the period thereafter since the rejection by

the respondent No.1 DDA of the said representation has not found favour

with this Court.

14. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No

order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 02, 2011 'vk'.