Delhi Development Authority vs Bandana Mukherjee
2013 Latest Caselaw 1113 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Judgment reserved on   :      04.03.2013
                            Judgment pronounced on :      06.03.2013

+      LPA No.1250/2007

       DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                       ..... Appellant
                            Through :   Mr. Rajiv Bansal with Mr. Devvrat
                                        Singh Raghav, Advs.
                   versus

        BANDANA MUKHERJEE                                 .... Respondent
                            Through :   Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Medha
                                        Sachdev, Advs.
       CORAM:
        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. The respondent before this Court got herself registered for

allotment of a flat under New Pattern Registration Scheme ('NPRS'),

1979. In the registration form, the respondent disclosed her address as F-

2249, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. The respondent being a housewife, no

residential address of her own was disclosed in the application form, but

she gave the occupational address of her husband in the application form.

On death of her husband on 22.7.1991, the respondent shifted from

F-2249, Netaji Nagar to E-1500, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. She, however,

did not intimate the change of address to DDA. Subsequently, DDA

announced a Scheme for 'Out of Turn Allotment of Flats to Widows'.

The respondent applied for out of turn allotment of a Flat under the

aforesaid Scheme giving her address as E-1500, Netaji Nagar, New

Delhi. She also disclosed her NPRS Registration in the application form.

No out of turn allotment was made to the respondent. However, in a draw

of lot, held on 30.5.2002, the respondent was allotted a residential flat

under NPRS, 1979 and the Allotment-Cum-Demand-Letter was sent to F-

2249, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. The said letter having been returned

undelivered, a cancellation letter dated 1.2.2004 was sent to the

respondent at the same address. The cancellation letter also remained

unserved. On 18.8.2005, the respondent represented to DDA for

allotment at the same location where she was allotted a flat in the draw

held on 30.5.2002. This was followed by subsequent representations

dated 1.9.2005 and 28.12.2005. Since the representations made to the

appellant did not yield any result, a writ petition being W.P(C)

No.16317/2006 was filed by the respondent, seeking direction to DDA to

issue a Allotment-Cum-Demand-Letter to her, at the price prevailing in

the year 2002 when her priority had matured. The learned Single Judge,

vide impugned order dated 23.7.2007, directed the appellant to hold a

mini draw for the respondent, subject to availability of any other flat in

Dwarka and issue a fresh Demand-cum-Allotment-Letter at the cost

prevailing in January, 2006. Being aggrieved, the DDA is before us by

way of this appeal.

2. When this appeal came up for hearing on 28.9.2007, the learned

counsel for the respondent stated that she would not press for

implementation of the impugned order. In view of her statement, no

interim order was felt necessary.

3. It is an admitted position that though in terms of registration under

NPRS, 1979, the respondent was required to intimate any change of

address to DDA, no such intimation was given by her when she shifted

from F-2249, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi to E-1500, Netaji Nagar, New

Delhi. No explanation is forthcoming from the respondent for not

intimating the change of address to DDA.

4. Admittedly, since the respondent is a housewife, no occupational

address of her own was disclosed by her in the registration form under

NPRS. However, she disclosed the occupational address of her husband

in the said form. No effort was made by the appellant-DDA to send the

allotment letter to the occupational address of the husband of the

respondent. The question which comes for consideration is as to whether

the respondent is entitled to allotment of a flat on account of DDA not

sending the Demand-cum-Allotment Letter at the occupational address of

her husband. We agree that it is the duty of DDA to send demand-cum-

allotment letter not only at the residential address disclosed in the

registration form but also at the occupational address disclosed therein, in

a case where the demand-cum-allotment letter sent at the address is

received back unserved on account of change of address. Therefore, had

the husband of the respondent been alive and working at the place

disclosed in the registration form, at the time the allotment letter sent at

the residential address of the respondent was received back unserved, and

had the allotment letter not been sent at address, the grievance of the

respondent would have been justified because, in that case, the allotment

letter would have been served upon her husband, at his occupational

address. However, in the case before us, admittedly, the husband of the

respondent expired on 22.7.1991 and the allotment came to be made only

on 30.5.2002 i.e. after about 11 years of the death of her husband.

Therefore, sending the allotment letter at the occupational address of the

husband of the respondent would not have served any purpose and would

have been an exercise in futility. We are not inclined to accept the

contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that had the demand-

cum-allotment letter been sent at the occupational address of the husband

of the respondent given in the registration form, the persons working at

the said office, could have given new address of the respondent to the

Postman who then would have taken the demand-cum-allotment letter to

the new address or would have sent the demand-cum-allotment letter

back to DDA after noting down the changed address of the respondent.

While examining such a contention, we have to keep in mind not only

that the demand-cum-allotment letter would be in the name of the

respondent and not in the name of her husband who was the employee at

some point of time posted in that office but also that he had expired about

11 years before the demand-cum-allotment letter was dispatched. The

employees working in the said office, after 11 years of the death of the

husband of the respondent, would not even be knowing that the person to

whom the letter was addressed is the wife of a former colleague who died

11 years ago. Therefore, in the present case, cancellation of allotment

cannot be challenged on the ground that the demand-cum-allotment letter

was not sent to the occupational address of the deceased husband of the

respondent.

5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondent was

that since the changed address of the respondent was available in the

application submitted by her for out of turn allotment of flat, the appellant

ought to have sent the allotment letter on that address. In order to

examine this contention, we called for the allotment file of DDA in

respect of registration under NPRS as well as the file in which her

application for out-of-turn allotment of flat was processed. We were

informed that the file in which the application of the respondent for out of

turn allotment of a flat was processed, is not available, the same having

been destroyed. On a perusal of the file in which the allotment under

NPRS 1979 was processed, we found that neither the copy of the

application submitted by the respondent for out of turn allotment of a flat

was available in that file nor was there any reference to such an

application in that file. Since the officers of DDA dealing with the file

pertaining to allotment under NPRS 1979, were not even aware of the

respondent having applied for out of turn allotment and having submitted

an address different from the address given in the application for

registration under NPRS, they had no occasion to send the

demand-cum-allotment letter at the changed address. Even if the officers

of DDA, dealing with the file pertaining to allotment under NPRS, were

to be aware of the respondent applying for out of turn allotment, they

would have no occasion to send the demand-cum-allotment letter under

NPRS to the changed address, unless they are also aware that the address

given by the respondent in the application seeking out of turn allotment

was different from the address which she had given in the application for

registration under NPRS. Therefore, we find no merit in the contention

that since the respondent had given a changed address in her application

for out of turn allotment, the demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of

the flat allotted to her under NPRS, 1979 should have been sent at that

changed address.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision

of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) 9724/2006 decided on

10th August, 2009. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner before this Court

got himself registered under NPRS 1979 and disclosed a particular

address. Thereafter, he applied for out of turn allotment and disclosed a

new address in that application. The petitioner was allotted a flat in

NPRS 1979 and the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at the address

disclosed by him in the application for registration under the said

Scheme. No attempt was made to send the demand-cum-allotment letter

at the new address given in the application seeking out of turn allotment.

The petitioner, while seeking registration under NPRS had also disclosed

an occupational address. No attempt was made by DDA to send the

demand-cum-allotment letter at that occupation address. The contention

of DDA before the learned Single Judge was that out of turn allotment, an

MIG (Housing) are two different departments and the address known to

one department cannot be construed as the address known to the other.

The learned Single Judge noticed that the letter dated 14th February, 1992

was forwarded to the MIG(Housing) of DDA clearly stipulated that the

petitioner was a registrant of NPRS 1979 Scheme and was residing at a

new address. The said letter also disclosed old registration number as

well as new registration number under the MIG category. Even the

computer number was given. It was, in these circumstances, that the

learned Single Judge was of the view that DDA should have checked the

computer number to incorporate the new address given by the petitioner.

However, in the case before us, we have ourselves examined the file in

which allotment under NPRS 1979 was processed and we have found that

there is absolutely no reference in the said file to the application of the

respondent for out of turn allotment of a flat. More importantly, the said

file does not even have an indication that the respondent had submitted an

application for out of turn allotment and in that application, she had

disclosed an address different from the address disclosed in the applcition

for registration under NPRS 1979. As regards the appellant not sending

demand-cum-allotment letter at the occupational address of the husband

of the respondent, as stated earlier in this order, considering the fact that

the husband of the respondent died about 11 years before the allotment

matured, no useful purpose would have been served by sending the said

letter at that address.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated

23.07.2007 is hereby set aside. In the facts and circumstances of the

present case, there shall be no order as to costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

CHIEF JUSTICE

MARCH 06 , 2013/rd/'sn'