Delhi High Court
Madhu Arora Alias Hony Monga vs Delhi Development Authority on 26 February, 2013
Author: Reva Khetrapal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 343/2012
MADHU ARORA ALIAS HONY MONGA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nanda Kinra, Advocate
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate.
% Date of Decision : February 26, 2013
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
JUDGMENT
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. Rule.
2. With the consent of the parties, the Writ Petition was taken up
for final hearing and disposal.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are
that the Petitioner had booked an LIG flat in the year 1979 vide
registration No.61175 in the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979
(for short 'NPRS Scheme'). From the year 1996 onwards, the
Petitioner made several representations to the Delhi Development
Authority to know the status of the allotment and attended several
public hearings. Eventually, the Petitioner was informed that the
record/file relating to her case were missing from 1996 and could not
be traced out. On 13.11.2009, the Petitioner on moving an RTI
application came to know that she was allotted a flat in the year 1991,
being flat No.39, Pocket 3, Ground Floor, Sector 15, Block-G, at
Rohini with block dates 09.01.1991 - 13.01.1991, but in the said
demand letter her name was mentioned as Jony Monga instead of
Hony Monga and hence the demand letter was received back by the
DDA undelivered. It may be mentioned at this juncture that the
Petitioner subsequently changed her name from Hony Monga to
Madhu Arora upon being married to one Shri Ashok Arora.
4. On further enquiry from DDA, the Petitioner was informed that
at every stage the Petitioner's name in the computer file had been
shown as Jony Monga.
5. It is not disputed by the DDA that the name written on the
demand-cum-allotment letter dated 9th/13th January, 1991 was
incorrect. Admittedly also, the demand cum allotment letter was not
received by the Petitioner and it was returned back to the DDA
undelivered with the report that no such person was residing at the
given address. That the DDA did not bother to send the
communication again after checking and verifying the name and
address of the Petitioner is also not in dispute. It is also admitted that
in the computer record inadvertently against the name of Kr. Hony
Monga the name Kr. Jony Monga has been fed, though it is stated that
the priority number, registration number and postal address of the
allottee are correct as per record.
6. The DDA contends that the present petition is not maintainable
and liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. It is
submitted that a show cause notice was issued, dated 08.04.1991, to
the Petitioner but no response was received, therefore, the allotment
was cancelled with the request to deposit a sum of ` 4,058/- on
account of cancellation charges within 60 days so that her name
would be considered at the tail end of the priority list for allotment of
flat. It is stated that as per the policy of the Respondent, the flats
under tail end policy are to be allotted only in those cases where the
registrants have at least deposited cancellation charges upto 31 st
December, 1993. The present case is not covered by the aforesaid
policy of the Respondent. Finally, it is stated that the case of the
Petitioner is not covered under wrong address policy because the
Petitioner had been sent the demand letter at the correct address and
this is sufficient to presume that the communication would have been
delivered at the address of the Petitioner.
7. The short question which arises is whether the DDA was
justified in cancelling the allotment in the facts and circumstances of
the case. I think not. Counsel for the DDA has opposed this petition
primarily on the ground that the demand-cum-allotment letter was
sent at the correct address. However, there is no denying the fact that
the demand letter was not addressed to the registrant, i.e., the
Petitioner, and was received back undelivered by the DDA. Counsel
for the DDA has not disputed, as indeed she could not have, that the
demand-cum-allotment letter was sent under the wrong name. This
fact is also borne out from the records. The Petitioner, therefore,
cannot be deprived of an allotment to which she is entitled on account
of the lapse of DDA. The contention of the DDA that there is a
presumption of service, the communication having been delivered at
the address of the addressee is also of no avail to the DDA. The
Respondent/DDA has admittedly received back the communication
and hence is estopped from contending that there is a presumption of
service.
8. The other objection raised by the Respondent/DDA that the
petition is barred by laches is also of lacking in merit. This Court has
time and again noted that applicants under the NPRS 1979 have
waited for two or more decades for their allotment to mature, and in
such circumstances, the Petitioner in the instant case, who was in
constant touch with the department and was told that her file was
misplaced, cannot be faulted for sitting over the matter. As per the
policy of the Respondent, the Respondent ought to have included the
name of the Petitioner in the tail end priority cases. This too the
Respondent failed to do.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the
Petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for. The Petitioner cannot be
deprived of her right of allotment for which she has waited since
1979, merely on account of the fault of the DDA in sending the
demand-cum-allotment letter in the wrong name. The contention of
the Respondent that a public notice was issued by the DDA to which
also the Petitioner did not respond and, therefore, the Petitioner is not
entitled to the allotment of a flat is without merit. It has been held
time and again reiterated by this Court that it would be both
unreasonable and unfair to expect registrants to keep track of public
notices issued by the DDA for years together and rely upon such
public notices to deprive bonafide registrants who have been waiting
for several decades for allotment of flats.
10. Resultantly, a Writ of Mandamus is issued to the Respondent
directing the Respondent/DDA to hold a mini draw within a period of
four weeks from today and make allotment of an LIG flat to the
Petitioner, in the same area if possible. The Petitioner shall be
allotted a flat in terms of the policy of the DDA dated 25 th February,
2005. Upon the Petitioner making payment in terms of the demand-
cum-allotment letter dated 9th/13th January, 1991 issued to the
Petitioner, the Petitioner shall be handed over the possession of the
flat within four weeks thereafter.
11. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Compliance shall be made by the Respondent as expeditiously as
possible and latest within the aforesaid period.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
February 26, 2013
km
