Delhi Development Authority vs Mohinder Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 1014 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of decision: 14th February, 2012

+                                LPA 1067/2011

%     DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY           ....Appellant
                  Through: Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Adv.

                                    Versus
      MOHINDER SINGH                                      ..... Respondent
                  Through:              Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Vikram Saini,
                                        Advs.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
                                 JUDGMENT

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The appellant DDA by this Intra-Court appeal impugns the judgment

dated 19.05.2011 of the learned Single Judge of this Court allowing W.P.(C)

No.1096/2011 preferred by the respondent and restoring the allotment of the

LIG flat in favour of the respondent and directing the appellant DDA to

issue a demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the respondent for the

amount the flat was initially allotted together with simple interest at the rate

of 12% per annum.

2. The respondent had applied to the appellant DDA under the New

Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979 for allotment of an LIG flat. No

allotment was made in favour of the respondent till the year 2000, when the

respondent shifted from the residential address furnished in the application

form, to another address. The respondent did not intimate the appellant

DDA of the change in address. Resultantly, when the allotment in favour of

the respondent matured in the year 2000 and a demand-cum-allotment letter

dated 11.08.2000-18.08.2000 was sent at the address furnished by the

respondent, the same was returned un-delivered.

3. The appellant DDA on 20.02.2001, published advertisement in the

newspapers showing the registration numbers of the undelivered demand

letters and calling upon the registrants thereof to approach the appellant

DDA. The registration number of the respondent was included therein.

Upon the respondent not responding thereto, the registration of the

respondent was deemed cancelled.

4. The respondent claims to have in the year 2010 learnt that all the

registrants of the NPRS-1979 had been made allotment. He then

approached the appellant DDA, when he claims to have learnt of the

cancellation in the manner aforesaid of his registration. Upon the

representation of the respondent failing to meet any success, the writ

petition from which this appeal arises was filed.

5. It was / is the plea of the respondent that even though he had not

intimated of the change of his address but in the documents filed by him in

the year 1979, his official address was available and where he continued to

work till the year 2004; that upon the demand-cum-allotment letter being

returned undelivered from his residential address, attempt for intimation at

his occupational address ought to have been made.

6. Per contra, the case of the appellant / DDA was / is that the

respondent had failed to furnish his occupational address against the column

provided therefor in the application form and thus the appellant DDA could

not be blamed for non intimation of the allotment to the respondent. It was /

is further pleaded that the NPRS, 1979 in which the respondent had

registered had since closed and the respondent is now entitled only to refund

of the registration amount.

7. The learned Single Judge has in the judgment impugned in this

petition, in the facts and circumstances of the case, accepted the plea of the

respondent that since the occupational address even though not filled in by

the respondent in the application form was available in the documents and

since the allotment was being made long after the application, attempt

should have been made to intimate the respondent at the occupational

address available in the documents filed along with the application. Finding

that as per the policy dated 25.02.2004 of the appellant DDA, upon the

registrant approaching the appellant DDA within four years is entitled to

allotment at the rates of the initial demand together with interest at the rate

of 12% per annum, direction for allotment of flat as aforesaid was made.

8. The counsel for the appellant DDA before us has contended that the

appellant DDA could not be expected to search in the documents filed along

with the application for the alternate addresses, when the registrant had

failed to provide the same; that in the present case, the respondent was

clearly at fault in not intimating the change of address; that the policy dated

25.02.2004 applied by the learned Single Judge was not applicable in the

facts of the case.

9. Finding the respondent to be at fault to the extent of not intimating

the change of his residential address and to have not enquired about the

status of his registration and to have waited for inordinately long time till

2010 to enquire and further finding the respondent to be not covered by the

policy aforesaid, we had enquired from the counsel for the respondent

whether the respondent was willing to pay the cost of the flat of the date

when the writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The

counsel for the respondent after obtaining instructions has stated that the

respondent for the sake of finality is willing to pay the costs of the flat as on

the date of the impugned judgment i.e. 19.05.2011.

10. We find that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition

exercising the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be

lost sight of that the priority of the respondent had matured nearly 24 years

after the registration. The respondent, who had waited for the flat for so

long, ought not to be deprived thereof for his default in intimating the

change of address. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge is

not interfereable in appeal unless found to be perverse. No perversity is

found in the present case. On the contrary with the respondent expressing

willingness to pay the cost of the flat of the year 2011, the interest of the

appellant DDA stands sufficiently protected.

11. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the

direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the appellant DDA to issue a

demand-cum-allotment letter in favour of the respondent, we modify the

same to the extent that the appellant DDA shall be entitled to demand the

cost of the flat as on 19.05.2011. The order be now complied with within

ten weeks of today. The appeal is disposed of. This order having been

made in the circumstances aforesaid, be not treated as precedent.

No order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

FEBRUARY 14, 2012 'gsr'