Deep Chand vs Dda & Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4308 Del

        THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                      Judgment delivered on: 20.07.2012

+       LPA 492/2012

DEEP CHAND                                                        ... Appellant


                                         versus

DDA & ORS                                                      ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner           : Mr Sidharth Joshi and Mr Ankur Arora
For the Respondent           : Mr Arun Birbal


CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

                                   JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)

CM 11423/2012 (Delay in filing) and CM 11424/2012 (Delay in refiling)

The delay in filing and refiling of the appeal is condoned.

These applications stand disposed of.

CM 11425/2012(Exemption)

Allowed subject to just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

LPA 492/2012

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by a

learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6040/2011. The writ

petition was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order primarily on the

ground of delay.

2. The appellant had been registered for an LIG flat under the New

Pattern Registration Scheme- 1979 floated by the respondent DDA. In 1991

the appellant was allotted Flat No.792, Pocket-D at Dilshad Garden, Delhi.

Unfortunately, the appellant had, in the meanwhile, changed his address

and consequently the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter in respect of the said

flat was sent by the respondent DDA at the wrong address and was never

been received by the appellant.

3. The appellant made representations and consequent thereupon, his

case was considered and examined under the policy with regard to

Demand-cum-Allotment Letters sent at wrong addresses. The policy

entailed that such an allottee would be given an alternate allotment. In view

thereof, the appellant was allotted a flat at Rohini. However, the appellant

was not happy with the said allotment because of the cost of the flat being

much higher than the cost of the flat at Dilshad Garden. Consequently, he

represented that he may be allotted a flat at Dilshad Garden inasmuch as the

cost of the flat at Rohini was too high for him to bear. This representation

of the petitioner was rejected and, ultimately, inasmuch as the appellant had

failed to avail the allotment at Rohini, the same was cancelled on

01.07.1994.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was waiting for his allotment as

he was under the impression that his case of allotment was still pending.

However, this submission on behalf of the appellant has been disbelieved

by the leaned Single Judge. It is for the first time in the year 2009 by a

letter dated 16.03.2009 that the appellant once again requested the DDA for

allotment of another flat against registration No.38561 under the LIG

category. He requested that he may be allotted a flat in Dilshad Garden or

even at Rohini but by charging the old cost when he was declared

successful for allotment of flat in the draw held on 15.02.1991. The case of

the appellant was examined and the appellant was required to furnish

certain documents. Thereafter the file was put up before the appropriate

authorities and we find that there are favourable notings in the file dated

15.01.2010 where a dealing assistant has indicated that approval may be

given for allotment of an LIG flat to the appellant under the "wrong

address" policy keeping in view the brief facts of the case available at page

15/N & 17/N of the said file. The file however travelled through the

appropriate authorities in the hierarchical structure and ultimately the

Director(H) of DDA rejected the case. The noting by the Director(H) on the

file was that the flat has already been allotted in the year 1992 and has been

cancelled due to non-compliance of terms and conditions of Demand-cum-

Allotment Letter. It was, therefore, observed that the case was liable for

rejection. Consequently, the appellant's request which he sought to revive

once again in the year 2009 also, after examination of the file by the

officials of the DDA, came to be rejected. It is thereupon that the appellant

filed the writ petition before this court which has been dismissed by virtue

of the impugned order dated 19.08.2011.

5. The learned Single Judge observed that though the respondent DDA

had a policy of giving a second chance but the appellant having allowed the

allotment in the year 1992 in his favour to lapse cannot be said to be now

eligible under the said policy after over 14 years. The learned Single Judge

also observed that the appellant herein had relied on the notings in the file

of the DDA which were favourable to him. However, the learned Single

Judge, in our view, correctly held that merely because some of the officials

of the DDA had made notings favourable to the appellant, the same would

not entitle him to relief when the said favourable notings did not find

favour with the higher officials who did not agree with the claim of the

appellant. The reliance placed by the learned Single Judge on the decisions

of the Supreme Court in the case of Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA,

(2009) 1 SCC 180 and Jasbir Singh Chhabra vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 4

SCC 192, in this regard, are apposite.

6. For the above reasons we feel that there is no occasion for us to take

a different view from that taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 20, 2012 mk