Delhi High Court
Subodh Kumar vs Dda on 19 September, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
$~13.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6663/2010
SUBODH KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Verma, Adv.
Versus
DDA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 19.09.2011
1. The petitioner is a registrant under the New Pattern Registration
Scheme of the year 1979 of the respondent DDA for an MIG flat. He was on
29th March, 1986 allotted a flat at Nand Nagri, Delhi but did not opt for the
same and applied for cancellation and paid the cancellation charges. It is not
in dispute that as per the then Policy of the respondent DDA, the name of
the petitioner was to be again put at the tail end for consideration afresh for
allotment.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was however not made to
participate in any draw held thereafter and no allotment made to him and in
response to an RTI query in the year 2006 learnt of the closure of the said
scheme. After the representations of the petitioner to the respondent DDA
for allotment met with no success, the present petition has been filed for
mandamus for allotment of the flat at the rates prevalent at the time of
registration.
1/-
3. Notice of the petition was issued. The respondent DDA though has
admitted the registration, allotment and cancellation, has pleaded that the
scheme under which the petitioner was registered was closed in the year
2006, after advertising widely in the newspapers about the said closure and
after asking the registrants, if remained to be allotted any flat to approach
the respondent DDA and the petitioner having not so approached the
respondent DDA within the time stipulated in the advertisements is now not
entitled to any relief.
4. The aforesaid would demonstrate that the only defence of the
respondent DDA to the claim in the petition is of notice by public
advertisement. However the respondent DDA has not stated that after the
cancellation of 1986 any allotment was made to the petitioner or that the
petitioner had failed to avail of the same. Notice by publication has to be in
addition to the personal notice and in the absence of any plea of any
allotment or personal notice to the petitioner, the respondent DDA cannot
rely on the public notice alone. The counsel for the petitioner in this regard
relies on the judgment dated 28th January, 2008 of this Court in W.P.(C)
266/2007 titled Usha Saikia v. DDA where also, without personal notice
having not been given, notice by publication was not held to disentitle the
petitioner from allotment.
5. The respondent DDA owed a duty to the petitioner to make an
allotment to the petitioner after accepting the cancellation charges from the
petitioner in the year 1986 and having not done so, is liable to allot the flat
for which the petitioner has waited for last over 30 years.
6. The petition is accordingly allowed.
2/-
7. The respondent DDA is directed to within eight weeks from today
process the case of the petitioner for allotment in accordance with law and
as per the Policy and treating the priority number of the petitioner to be still
in existence.
8. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2011
pp..
3/-
