Delhi Development Authority vs Ravi Kant Kapoor
2013 Latest Caselaw 726 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     LPA 837/2012
      DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                        ..... Appellant
                         Through: None.

                         versus

      RAVI KANT KAPOOR                           ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr R.K. Saini, Adv.and respondent in
                   person.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                     ORDER

% 13.02.2013

The respondent got himself registered for allotment of a flat from the

appellant Delhi Development Authority under its New Pattern Registration

Scheme (NPRS), 1979. At the time of registration, the respondent gave his

address as E-397, Dev Nagar Government Quarters, New Delhi. A demand

cum allotment letter with the block dates 03.05.1994 to 10.05.1994 was

issued to the respondent at the address given in the application for

registration. However, since the respondent had already shifted from that

place, the aforesaid demand cum allotment letter was returned back with the

LPA 837/2012 page 1 of 4 endorsement "left without address". Though nothing was found in the

record of DDA to show that the respondent had provided his changed

address to the appellant, the file noting dated 05.08.1994, which the

appellant produced before the learned Single Judge, at the time of hearing of

the writ petition, showed that DDA was somehow aware of the changed

address of the respondent which was noted as 25, Sharda Niketan, Saraswati

Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-34 in the aforesaid file noting. However, the

demand cum allotment letter was not sent at the new address, despite the

appellant DDA being aware of it.

2. The appellant thereafter decided to issue a show-cause notice to the

respondent. The initial address given in the show-cause notice was E-397,

Dev Nagar Government Quarters, New Delhi, which was later scored off

and the Pitampura address was written on the notice. The Despatch Register

produced before the learned Single Judge revealed that the original address

mentioned in the Despatch Register was of Dev Nagar though subsequently

Pitampura address was mentioned on the side of the relevant entry. Since

the allotment made to the respondent was cancelled, a writ petition was filed

by him, challenging the aforesaid cancellation. The writ petition having

LPA 837/2012 page 2 of 4 been allowed, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

3. As noted earlier before us, the new address of the respondent was

very much in the knowledge of the respondent as would be evident from the

noting dated 05.08.1994 made in the relevant file. Though the proposal in

the file was to send the demand cum allotment letter at the new address, the

record produced before the learned Single Judge revealed that the demand

cum allotment letter was not sent to the new address. There is no

explanation from the appellant as to why the demand cum allotment letter

was not sent at the new address, despite such address being available with it.

4. As regards show-cause notice, the very fact that the initial address

recorded in the Despatch Register was of Dev Nagar clearly indicates that

change of address in the show-cause notice was carried out after the relevant

entry had already been made in the Despatch Register. Had the address in

the show-cause notice been changed before sending the show-cause notice

to the Despatch Section, the new address, and not the old address would

have been entered in the Despatch Register. In these circumstances, there is

a strong probability of the new address having been written in the show-

cause notice as well as in the Despatch Register at a later date.

LPA 837/2012 page 3 of 4

5. More importantly, there is no evidence of the respondent having sent

the show-cause notice to the respondent at the new address, which was

available in its record. No postal receipt, showing despatch of the show-

cause notice to the new address of the respondent, was produced before the

learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appellant failed to establish that the

show-cause notice was sent at the new address of the respondent.

6. In these circumstances, when the appellant did not send demand cum

allotment letter at the new address of the respondent, despite such an address

being available in its record and did not produce any proof of the show-

cause notice having been sent at the new address of the respondent, we find

no fault with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, directing

allotment to the respondent at the cost of December, 2011 when the writ

petition was filed.

The appeal is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE



                                                               V.K. JAIN, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2013
BG
LPA 837/2012                                                     page 4 of 4