Santosh Kumari Khanna vs Delhi Development Authority
2012 Latest Caselaw 2364 Del

*          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                            W.P.(C) 8190/2011

                                                    Decided on: 12.04.2012

IN THE MATTER OF

SANTOSH KUMARI KHANNA                               ..... Petitioner
                  Through: Mr. R.K. Saini, Advocate

                    versus


DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                          ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. Arjun Pant, Advocate


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner herein registered herself with the respondent/DDA

under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (in short „NPRS-1979‟) for

allotment of a MIG flat on making payment of the registration deposit on

27.09.1979. At the time of submitting the application for registration, she

had furnished three addresses. The residential address furnished by the

petitioner was, House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, where

she was residing at the relevant time. Two occupational addresses were

given by the petitioner, one was MC Primary School, Masjid Tehwarkhan,

Delhi-110006, where she was working as a teacher at that time and from

where she had retired on 29.04.2002, the second occupational address was

that of her husband, namely, Shri Khushal Chand Khanna, c/o India Shock

Absorbers (Regd.), Shop No.45, Khanna Market, Tis Hazari, Delhi, where he

was working at the relevant time and continues to work therefrom till date.

In September, 1999, the petitioner had changed her residential address

from House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar, Double Storey, Delhi, to C-1/46, Malka

Ganj, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi, but admittedly, she did not inform the

respondent/DDA about the change of address. In the meantime, the priority

of the petitioner had matured and her name was included in the draw of lots

held by the respondent/DDA on 27.09.1999. In the aforesaid draw of lots,

the petitioner was allotted a MIG flat bearing No.13, Pocket-1, Sector-13,

Dwarka, New Delhi and a demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates

29.12.1999-31.12.1999 was issued to her at the residential address

provided by her in her application form, i.e., House No.6/15-A, Vijay Nagar,

Double Storey, Delhi. As the petitioner had changed her residence from the

aforesaid address in September, 1999, the said demand-cum-allotment

letter was not received by her and instead it was returned undelivered to the

respondent/DDA with the remarks, "left/not available".

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that upon receiving

the undelivered allotment letter, the respondent/DDA did not make any

effort to re-despatch the same to either the occupational address of the

petitioner or that of her husband, which were available in its records.

Instead of redirecting the allotment letter to the aforesaid occupational

addresses, the respondent/DDA proceeded to cancel the allotment without

even issuing a notice to show cause to the petitioner. He submits that

sometime in July 2011, the petitioner came to know that all the registrants

of the NPRS-1979 had been made allotments. She, therefore, visited the

office of the respondent/DDA to enquire as to the status of her allotment and

on 01.08.2011, she was informed that she had been allotted the MIG flat

mentioned hereinabove in September, 1999 and thereafter it was cancelled

by the respondent/DDA on account of non-payment of amount as demanded

in the demand-cum-allotment letter.

3. On coming to know about the cancellation of the allotment of the

flat made in her favour, the petitioner submitted representations to the

Commissioner (Housing) and the Director (Housing), DDA, requesting that

she be allotted an alternative flat since the cancellation of the earlier

allotment done by the respondent/DDA was for no fault that could be

attributed to her. The present petition is occasioned as it is the stand of the

petitioner that the representations made by her did not find favour with the

respondent/DDA and remained unanswered.

4. In support of his submission that the petitioner is entitled to an

allotment of a flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of the original

allotment alongwith simple interest payable from the date of the original

allotment till the date of issue of a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter,

learned counsel for the petitioner relies on an office order dated 25.02.2005

issued by the respondent/DDA (Annexure P-3). The case law relied upon by

the counsel for the petitioner in support of the present case is as below:-

(i) Hirdayapal Singh vs. DDA in W.P.(C) 15002/2006 decided on 06.02.2007.

(ii) Prem Bhatnagar vs. DDA in W.P.(C) 592/2011 decided on 19.05.2011.

(iii) Ravi Dass vs. DDA in W.P.(C) 5554/2011 decided on 16.02.2012.

5. Counsel for the respondent/DDA opposes the present petition

and submits that the result of the draw that was held on 27.09.1999 was

displayed by the respondent/DDA on its notice board at its headquarters at

Vikas Sadan. Apart from the above, the result was also published in the

newspapers and displayed on DDA‟s website but the petitioner did not

respond thereto. Besides the above, the respondent/DDA is stated to have

issued a public notice in leading newspapers requesting the successful

registrants, whose allotment letters were returned undelivered, to collect

their allotment letters from the concerned department, but as the petitioner

did not respond to the said public notice and failed to collect the undelivered

allotment letter, the flat that was allotted to her was subsequently cancelled

on account of non-payment. He confirms the fact that the demand-cum-

allotment letter bearing block dates of 29.12.1999-31.12.1999,

whereunder she was called upon to deposit the cost of the flat as per the

schedule mentioned therein had been issued to the petitioner, but the same

was returned undelivered.

6. As regards the occupational addresses furnished by the

petitioner at the time of registering herself under the NPRS-1979, it is stated

by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA that the occupational address is

required only for the purpose of verification of the salary certificate of the

registrant and not for the purpose of despatch of letters. It is pointed out

that since the petitioner had failed to intimate her changed address to the

respondent/DDA, the allotment letter could not reach her and was returned

to the respondent/DDA as undelivered, for which the respondent/DDA

cannot be faulted. Counsel for the respondent/DDA lastly states that the

present petition is hit by delay and latches and is not maintainable for the

reason that the allotment in the present case had been made in favour of

the petitioner way back in the year 1999, whereas, the present petition

came to be filed in November 2011, and is therefore highly belated.

7. The Court has considered the rival submissions of the counsels

for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

8. The facts of the case are undisputed. It is an admitted position

that at the time of submitting her application for registration under the

NPRS-1979, the petitioner had furnished three addresses to the

respondent/DDA. The first address was her residential address, the second

address was her own occupational address and the third address was the

occupational address of her husband, who is still stated to be employed at

the same address.

9. Assuming that the petitioner had shifted her residence from the

residential address as contained in the records of the respondent/DDA, and

that she had not informed the respondent/DDA about the change of her

residential address, it was still incumbent upon the respondent/DDA to have

made efforts to re-direct the undelivered demand-cum-allotment letter

issued to the petitioner at the occupational addresses available in its record.

Considering the fact that the timeline between the submission of the

application by the petitioner under the Scheme, i.e., the year 1979 and the

date of maturing of her allotment, i.e., the year 1999, is almost two

decades, it is not extraordinary to find that the petitioner had changed her

address in this long duration, more so when registrants, like the petitioner

herein, who are government employees, are likely to change their residential

premises and relocate themselves from time to time. In such circumstances,

it was all the more imperative for the respondent/DDA to have made every

attempt to serve the petitioner not only at the residential address available

in its record but also at the two occupational addresses furnished by her in

her application for registration. The submission made by the learned

counsel for the respondent/DDA that the occupational addresses are

required by the respondent/DDA only to verify the financial status of the

applicant and not for the purpose of correspondence does not cut any ice

and is untenable, for the reason that the format of the application required

to be filled up by the registrants does not reveal any such intent of the

respondent/DDA. Rather, the form is silent in that regard and it only sets

out a requirement of filling up the addresses by the registrants by

furnishing both, residential and occupational addresses. Moreover, there is

force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that for the purpose

of verifying the financial status of a registrant, the respondent/DDA requires

a registrant to submit an income certificate, which requirement was duly

complied with by the petitioner in the present case.

10. As regards the submission made by the counsel for the

respondent/DDA that the petitioner was under an obligation to have kept a

track on the status of her registration and once, the respondent/DDA had

taken steps to display the results of the draw on its notice board at its

headquarters as also issued a public notice, calling upon the successful

registrants to collect their allotment letters, the same exonerated it from

taking any further steps to intimate the petitioner at the occupational

addresses available in its records as to the allotment made in her favour, is

unjustified and is unacceptable. As observed by a co-ordinate Bench in the

case of Prem Bhatnagar (supra), the courts have taken a consistent view

that a general notice in leading newspapers even if published, is no notice at

all as it is not expected that the registrant would be looking out for a public

notice on a daily basis particularly when it takes a period of 20-25 years for

an allotment to mature. In the case of Ravi Dass (supra), this Court had

observed that efforts ought to have been made by the respondent/DDA to

have dispatched the demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner therein

at his permanent address as he was employed with a government agency

and did not own a residential premises in the NCT of Delhi. It was thus

observed that it was natural for the government employee to have shifted

from his earlier residential premises and to have relocated himself from time

to time.

11. In the present case also, it is not unnatural for the petitioner to

have relocated her residence over past two decades as is apparent from a

perusal of the averments made in the writ petition. The Court is also

cognizant of the fact that the respondent/DDA itself has issued an office

order dated 25.02.2005, which deals with the policy pertaining to issuance

of a demand letter at wrong address and missing priority cases of DDA.

Having regard to the fact that the respondent/DDA has circulated the said

Office Order dated 25.2.2005, the same would apply to the petitioner herein

as well. Para 2 of the aforesaid Office Order is relevant for consideration

and is reproduced hereinbelow:

"2. In cases, where such an intimation has been made but the allottee has not approached the DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, the allottee shall be considered for allotment of flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of original allotment + 12% simple interest w.e.f. the date of original allotment till the date of issue of fresh Demand-cum-Allotment Letter."

12. The aforesaid office order would be applicable if the

respondent/DDA does not dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to an

allottee at the addresses as are available in its record. The present decision

is therefore in line with the decision taken by a co-ordinate Bench in the

case of Hirdayapal Singh (supra).

13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition succeeds

and is therefore allowed with directions to the respondent/DDA to hold a

mini draw of lots for allotment of a flat to the petitioner in the same

category, of the same size and in the same locality, within a period of eight

weeks from today. Thereafter, a demand-cum-allotment letter shall be

issued to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of

holding of the mini draw of lots. In the demand-cum-allotment letter, the

cost of the flat shall be determined by the respondent/DDA in terms of its

Office Order dated 25.2.2005 and the respondent/DDA shall assess the cost

of the flat at the cost prevalent at the time of the original allotment along

with simple interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the original

allotment till the date of issuance of a demand-cum-allotment letter. Upon

receipt of such a demand-cum-allotment letter, the petitioner shall complete

all the requisite formalities as stipulated by the respondent/DDA and

thereafter, physical possession of the flat shall be handed over to her within

a period of four weeks from the date of completion of such formalities.

The petition is disposed of, while leaving the parties to bear their own

costs.

                                                          (HIMA KOHLI)
APRIL      12, 2012                                          JUDGE
rkb