Delhi High Court
Delhi Development Authority vs Sh. Balwinder Singh on 14 February, 2012
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14th February, 2012
+ LPA 1083/2011
% DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY .... Appellant
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Adv.
Versus
SH. BALWINDER 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. This intra Court appeal impugns the order dated 23.03.2011 of the
learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.8132/2008 preferred by the
respondent and directing the appellant DDA to allot an LIG flat to the
respondent at the cost prevalent on 31.01.2006. Notice of the appeal was
issued. Counsels have been heard.
2. The respondent was a registrant with the appellant DDA in the New
Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979 for an LIG flat.
3. The respondent, in the application form filed by him in the year 1979
had given his residential address. Upon the respondent in the year 1991
shifting his residence, intimation thereof was also given to the appellant
DDA.
4. An LIG flat was finally allotted in favour of the respondent in
October, 1993 and a demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates
27.12.1993 to 31.12.1993 sent at the changed address of the respondent.
The same was however returned undelivered with the postal endorsement
"No Such Person". The appellant DDA cancelled the allotment and sent
cancellation letters dated 29.09.1994 and 20.12.1994 at the said address of
the respondent. The respondent even then did not respond.
5. The respondent claims to have towards the end of the year 2005 learnt
that allotments to all the registrants of the NPRS, 1979 had been completed;
he then represented to the appellant DDA and upon not meeting with any
success, finally in the year 2008 preferred the writ petition from which the
present appeal has arisen.
6. The appellant DDA in its counter affidavit before the learned Single
Judge pleaded that on the representations aforesaid of the respondent, the
appellant DDA had in the year 2009 sanctioned allotment of an LIG flat
under Tail-end Policy in favour of the respondent but which also the
respondent has failed to avail.
7. The learned Single Judge in the facts aforesaid, while directing
allotment in favour of the respondent, has ordered the same at the cost
prevalent on 31.01.2006 relying upon the order dated 10.04.2008 of another
Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.1630/2007 titled Vijay Kumar Vs.
DDA and the order dated 16.09.2008 in LPA No.267/2008 preferred
thereagainst.
8. Though the counsel for the respondent DDA has referred to M/s
Madan and Company Vs. Wazir Jaivir Chand (1989) 1 SCC 264 and C.C.
Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed (2007) 6 SCC 555 on the aspect of
presumption of service of article sent by post but in view of the appellant
DDA on the representations of the respondent having agreed in the year
2009 to make allotment of a flat to the respondent in the tail-end category,
the said question is irrelevant and the only question for adjudication in this
appeal is whether the appellant DDA is entitled to cost of the flat as
prevalent on 31.01.2006 or the current cost. The counsel for the respondent
besides relying upon the judgments aforesaid has also invited our attention
to the office order dated 25.02.2005 of the appellant DDA providing for
allotment at the cost of the date of initial allotment plus simple interest at
the rate of 12% per annum, upon the registrant approaching within four
years from the date of issue of the demand letter „at the wrong address‟.
9. The counsel for the respondent DDA has argued that the present is
not a case of issuance of demand letter at the wrong address but of the
demand-cum-allotment letter sent at the correct address returning
undelivered with postal endorsement aforesaid.
10. As far as the reliance by the respondent on the orders / judgments in
Vijay Kumar supra is concerned, the demand-cum-allotment letter in that
case had been returned with the postal endorsement of "left". In the present
case, the demand-cum-allotment letter though returned was with the postal
endorsement of "no such person" and the subsequent cancellation letters
were not even returned, leading to the presumption of service thereof on the
respondent. The respondent is even otherwise found to have waited a
inordinately long time of 16 years to make enquiries. The said order /
judgment in Vijay Kumar for turning on its own facts thus has no
application to facts of present case. It is not as if the appellant DDA is to
blame in any way. If that be so, we find no justification / reason to direct
DDA to allot flat today at cost of the year 2006 and which of course is at the
cost of public monies.
11. Be that as it may, since the appellant DDA on the representation of
the respondent agreed to place the respondent in the tail-end category, we
are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be sub-served if the
respondent pays the cost of the flat as prevalent on the date of the order of
the learned Single Judge i.e. of 23.03.2011.
12. The appeal is thus partly allowed. While maintaining the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge of allotment of a flat to the respondent,
we modify the order to the extent that the appellant DDA shall be entitled to
demand cost of the flat from the respondent as prevalent on 23.03.2011.
The order of the learned Single Judge, as modified, be now complied with
within ten weeks of today. The appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUARY 14, 2012
„gsr‟..
