Ravi Dass vs Delhi Development Authority
2012 Latest Caselaw 1081 Del

*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+           W.P.(C) No.5554/2011 & C.M.No.11350/2011

                                           Decided on: 16th February, 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
RAVI DASS                                            ..... Petitioner
                        Through : Mr. R.K. Saini with Mr. Vikram Saini, Advs.


                        versus

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                  ..... Respondents
                   Through : Mr. M.K. Singh, Adv.


CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia

for directions to the respondent/DDA to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment

letter to him in respect of the earlier allotted flat, i.e., Flat No.41-B (First

Floor), Phase-I, Dwarka, Delhi, at the old cost and if the same is not

available, then to direct the respondent/DDA to allot him an alternative flat

in the same area by holding a mini draw of lots at the old cost.

2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the year 1989,

respondent/DDA had floated a housing scheme known as Ambedkar Awas

Yojna, 1989, which was specifically meant for applicants under the category

of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner stated that being an

eligible applicant, he got himself registered under the aforesaid Scheme. At

the relevant time, he was working as an Executive Engineer in the Municipal

Corporation of Delhi and even presently is working as an Engineer-in-Chief

in the same department. At the time of registration, the petitioner had

furnished two addresses as required to be filled up by applicants in columns

7 & 8 of the application form. In column 7, the postal address furnished by

the petitioner for correspondence was, "DDA Flat No.16, Pocket A3, Sector-

7, Rohini, Delhi". In column 8, the permanent address furnished by the

petitioner was "Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk,

Delhi". On 23.10.1996, the petitioner had communicated to the

respondent/DDA that he had shifted his residence from the previous

residential address to "Flat No.A-3/79, Sector 8, Rohini Delhi" (Annexure P-

2). However, the petitioner has not placed on record, the proof of dispatch of

the aforesaid letter.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that after October, 1996, right

upto the year 2009, he did not receive any intimation about any allotment

being made to him, by the respondent/DDA. At that stage, the petitioner

approached the Deputy Director (MIG) Special Housing Scheme for SC/ST

persons seeking information with regard to the status of his allotment. It is

stated that besides addressing a letter dated 23.6.2009, the petitioner had

also attended a public hearing on 25.6.2009 in the office of the DDA and

only then did he come to know that a draw of lots had been held by the

respondent/DDA on 16.11.1998 and his name was included in the said draw

of lots. Thereafter, a demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29th

July to 2nd August, 1999 was also dispatched to the petitioner at his old

address informing him that he had been allotted a flat bearing No.41-B (First

Floor), Phase-I, Dwarka, Delhi. Upon being informed about the aforesaid

allotment, on 21.7.2009, the petitioner made a representation to the

respondent/DDA stating inter alia that despite having informed the

respondent/DDA about the change of his residential address in the year

1996, the demand-cum-allotment letter had been wrongly dispatched by

DDA at his old residential address due to which he could not receive the

same and, therefore, he be allotted a flat of the same size and in the same

locality without having to pay restoration charges. The aforesaid request of

the petitioner was turned down by the respondent/DDA, vide letter dated

25.6.2010 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition on 3.8.2011.

4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the non-receipt of the

demand-cum-allotment letter by the petitioner is on account of the

respondent/DDA dispatching the same at the old postal address indicated in

the application form for the purposes of correspondences, instead of sending

the same at the changed address, which was duly intimated to the

respondent/DDA in the year 1996. He further states that besides the

above, the petitioner had also furnished his permanent address at the time

of his registration and admittedly, the respondent/DDA did not made any

effort to re-send the said letter at the permanent address given by the

petitioner, thus causing him irreparable loss and injury.

5. Counsel for the respondent/DDA relies on the counter affidavit

filed by the respondent/DDA to submit that the demand-cum-allotment

letter bearing block dates 29th July to 2nd August, 1999 was dispatched to

the petitioner at his postal address mentioned by him in the registration

form, but the same was received back as „undelivered‟. He further states

that a Press Notice had been issued and got published by the

respondent/DDA in leading newspapers on 19.10.2002, whereby all the

successful allottees of various draws, who had not received their respective

demand-cum-allotment letters, were called upon to collect the same from

the office of the respondent/DDA within 15 days from the date of publication

of the above notice. He contends that despite the aforesaid Press Notice,

the petitioner did not contact the respondent/DDA and as a result, the

allotment of the flat made in his favour stood cancelled on account of non-

response/non-payment. He further states that the petitioner has slept over

the present case for almost two decades as he did not bother to inquire

about the status of his registration, nor did the respondent/DDA receive the

letter dated 23.10.1996, purportedly written by the petitioner informing DDA

about the change of his residential address.

6. It is further stated by the counsel for the respondent/DDA that

the department had issued a letter dated 20.11.2002, which was dispatched

to the petitioner at his postal address for correspondence and the same was

also returned back as „undelivered‟. Though a copy of the aforesaid letter

has not been placed on record, counsel for the respondent/DDA states that

he has the original records with him and he hands over a photocopy thereof

with a copy to the other side. The same is taken on record. As regards the

contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid letter was dispatched by UPC,

it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the letter sent

through UPC is a rather weak evidence and cannot be relied upon.

7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the

issue in hand has been previously examined by a coordinate Bench of this

Court in WP(C)No.15002/2006 entitled „Hirdayapal Singh vs. DDA‟

decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the Court had examined the question as to

whether DDA was justified in cancelling the allotment in a case where the

demand-cum-allotment letter had been dispatched to the petitioner therein

at the postal address for correspondence though not at the permanent

address as furnished by him in the registration form. He also relies upon the

Office Order dated 25.2.2005 issued by the respondent/DDA that deal with

cases pertaining to issuance of demand letter at the wrong address and

missing priority cases of DDA flats, and states that the delay, if any, on the

part of the petitioner has been taken into consideration while issuing the

aforesaid Office Order, which stipulates that if an allottee does not approach

the respondent/DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment,

his case would be considered for allotment of a flat at the old cost prevalent

at the time of original allotment, but with simple interest imposed @ 12%

with effect from the date of original allotment till the date of issuance of a

fresh demand-cum-allotment letter.

8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the counsels

for the parties and examined the documents placed on record as also the file

of the department produced by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA.

The stand of the petitioner that he had furnished two addresses at the time

of his registration, i.e., his postal address for correspondence and a

permanent address, is borne out from a perusal of his registration form

submitted to the respondent/DDA. The disputed question of fact is the

receipt of letter dated 23.10.1996, which the petitioner claims that he had

forwarded to the respondent/DDA by UPC informing it that he had changed

his postal address for future correspondence. Even if it is assumed that the

letter dated 23.10.1996 was not received by the respondent/DDA in its

records, respondent/DDA certainly had the permanent address of the

petitioner available with it.

9. The submission of the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the

petitioner ought to have followed up the status of his registration by keeping

in touch with the respondent/DDA, cannot absolve the respondent/DDA from

its duty to have made every effort to ensure that the demand-cum-allotment

letter reached the petitioner at the addresses as available in its record. The

permanent address of the petitioner admittedly remained the same

inasmuch as, at the time when the petitioner had got himself registered with

the respondent/DDA under the aforesaid Scheme, he was working as an

Executive Engineer in MCD and presently he is working in the same

department as Engineer-in-Chief. Therefore, permanent address furnished

by the petitioner was his occupational address, which is "Municipal

Corporation of Delhi, Model Town, Chandni Chowk, Delhi".

10. When the demand-cum-allotment letter could have been

dispatched by the respondent/DDA at the postal address for correspondence

furnished by the petitioner, there is no reason at all as to why it could not

have taken steps to dispatch the same letter at his permanent address once

it had been returned as „undelivered‟. It is not disputed that no effort was

made by the respondent/DDA to dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter

to the petitioner at his aforesaid permanent address. Admittedly, the

petitioner is employed with a Government agency and does not have his own

residential premises. Therefore, it is natural that the petitioner had to shift

from the earlier residential premises that he had been residing in on rent,

and relocate himself from Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi to Sector 3 Rohini, Delhi.

A periodical shifting of residence by the petitioner being a lessee is,

therefore, not surprising and in such circumstances, the respondent/DDA

was under an obligation to have made an attempt to serve the petitioner at

his permanent address as the letter in question dispatched to him at his

postal address for correspondence had been returned „undelivered‟. In fact

every possible effort ought to have been made by the respondent/DDA to

dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner at the addresses

available in its record.

11. In such circumstances, for the respondent/DDA to justify the

cancellation letter by arguing that the petitioner was under an obligation to

keep a track of the status of his registration and at the same time claim that

it was under no obligation to make an attempt to dispatch the demand-cum-

allotment letter at the permanent address of the petitioner available in its

record, is untenable and unacceptable. On the facts of the case in hand, it

was incumbent on the part of the respondent/DDA to have made efforts to

dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter at all the addresses of the

petitioner as available in its record. Accordingly, the rejection letter dated

25.6.2010 as also the cancellation letter dated 20.11.2002, issued by the

respondent/DDA, are set aside and quashed.

12. Having regard to the fact that the respondent/DDA has

circulated an Office Order dated 25.2.2005, which deals with a policy

pertaining to issuance of a demand letter at wrong address and missing

priority cases of DDA, the same would apply to the petitioner herein as well.

Para 2 of the aforesaid Office Order is relevant for consideration and the

same 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."

13. 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 in line with the decision taken by a co-ordinate Bench in the case of

Hirdayapal Singh (supra).

14. As a result, the present petition is allowed and disposed of 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 six 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 him within a period of four weeks from the date of

completion of such formalities.

15. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application.

16. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the

parties are left to bear their own costs.

                                                             (HIMA KOHLI)
FEBRUARY 16, 2012                                               JUDGE
sk