Delhi High Court
Lavneet Kaur Bhatia vs Delhi Development Authority on 20 February, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 18.02.2013
Judgment pronounced on : 20.02.2013
+ LPA 720/2012
LAVNEET KAUR BHATIA ..... Appellant
Through Mr. N. Kinra, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pawan Mathur, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. Sh. Raghubir Singh, husband of the appellant got himself registered
with the respondent-DDA for allotment of an MIG flat. At the time of
registration, Sh. Raghubir Singh gave his address as A-241, Krishna
Nagar, Delhi. Sh. Raghubir Singh expired on 3rd January, 1989 and the
case of the appellant is that vide letter dated 25th January, 1989, informed
the respondent about his death and sought transfer of the said registration
in her name. In a draw of lots held in the year 1999, a flat was allotted in
the name of late Sh. Raghubir Singh and the allotment letter was sent at
the address given in the registration form. On DDA publishing a notice in
the newspaper stating therein that MIG priority was over, the appellant
submitted a representation stating therein that she had not received any
allotment against the aforesaid registration and therefore an MIG flat be
allotted to her. A show cause notice dated 17.10.2002 in the meanwhile,
was issued by the respondent in the name of Sh. Raghubir Singh and was
sent at the same address i.e., A2/41, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. Since the said
show cause notice also remained unserved, the allotment made in the
name of the husband of the appellant was cancelled by the DDA.
2. Being aggrieved from non-allotment of a flat to her, the appellant
filed a writ petition before this Court being WP(C) 4919/2007. The said
petition having been dismissed, she is before us by way of this appeal.
3. The only question which arises for our consideration in this case is
as to whether the change of address was ever intimated by the appellant
or by her husband to DDA at any point of time. Her case is that she sent
letter dated 25.01.1989 to DDA in which her address was B-68, Rampuri,
Near Surya Nagar, Gaziabad, UP which is also stated to be her present
address. In its counter affidavit DDA has emphatically denied having
received the aforesaid letter dated 25.01.1989. In view of the stand taken
by the DDA in the counter affidavit with respect to the letter dated
25.01.1989 the question as to whether the said letter was actually
delivered to DDA or not, becomes a disputed question of fact which
cannot be gone into in a writ petition since it would require recording of
evidence. For this reason alone the writ petition was liable to be
dismissed.
4. We have considered the letter dated 25.01.1989. This is a simple
letter for transferring the MIG Flat registration No. 40500 priority No.
27090 in favour of the appellant. This letter in any manner cannot be said
to be a letter seeking change in address of the registrant in the record of
the DDA. Merely because the changed address was given in the letter
dated 25.01.1989, does not ipso facto convert it into an intimation of
change of address of the registrant. The appellant, if she wanted the
change of address in the record of DDA, ought to have made a specific
request to DDA to not only transfer the registration in her name but also
to change the address of the registrant in its record. That, admittedly, was
not done by the appellant. Since the appellant did not make any request to
DDA to change the address of the registrant in its record, DDA could not
have sent the allotment letter to her at the new address given in the letter
dated 25.01.1989 seeking transfer of the registration in the name of the
appellant. This is more so when the letter dated 25.01.1989 was not
available in the record of DDA. The only address available in the record
of DDA being A2/41, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and the allotment letter as
well as the show cause notice having been sent at that address, the
respondent cannot be blamed for cancelling the allotment on account of
non-payment of balance consideration.
5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the appeal
and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
V.K.JAIN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
FEBRUAY 20, 2013
'raj'
