Jai Prakash vs D.D.A.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2274 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Decision: 15.05.2013

+      W.P.(C) 1599/2013

       JAI PRAKASH                                      ..... Petitioner

                         Through:    Mr.R.K.Saini and Mr.Minal Sehgal,
                                     Advocates.

                         versus

       D.D.A.                                           ..... Respondent

                         Through:    Mr.Arun Birbal, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

                         JUDGMENT

V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL)

1. Late Sh.Khub Ram, the father of the petitioner got himself registered with

DDA under Ambedkar Awas Yojna for allotment of an LIG flat. At the time of

registration, late Sh.Khub Ram disclosed two addresses, one was his residential

address at A-70, Harijan Basti, Near Kalsha Stone, Lal Kuan, Badarpur, New

Delhi-44 and other was occupational address, K.R.Studio, Khub Ram

Photographers, Pehladpur, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, his father

shifted from the residence at Lal Kuan sometime in the year 1998 but did not

inform DDA about it. The father of the petitioner expired on 16.11.2006.

2. It transpires that the name of late Sh.Khub Ram was included in the draw of

lots held on 8.10.1999 and according to the demand cum allotment letter was sent

to him at the address Khub Ram Photographers, Pehladpur, Delhi. The said letter

was received back unserved. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that

the demand cum allotment letter was sent by DDA only at the residential address

disclosed by his father in the registration application and was not sent at the

occupational address, after it was received back undelivered when sent at the

residential address. The allotment came to be cancelled on account of non-

payment of the price of the flat. Sometime in June/July, 2012, the petitioner found

some papers with respect to the registration of his father with DDA under

Ambedkar Awas Yojna and visited DDA office to verify the status of said

registration. According to him, it was at that time when the above referred

information was given to him. The petitioner applied to DDA on 28.8.2011 for

mutation/transfer of the registration in his name and was informed by DDA that the

said registration had been transferred in his name but only for the purpose of refund

of the registration money since allotment made to his father has already been

cancelled. Being aggrieved from non-allotment of a flat to him, the petitioner is

before this court by way of this writ petition.

3. It would thus be seen that despite two addresses having been disclosed by

the petitioner one being the residential address of Lal Kuan and the other being the

occupational address, demand cum allotment letter was sent only at the

occupational address and admittedly no effort was made to send it to the residential

address of the petitioner. Ordinarily, DDA would be required to send the demand

cum allotment letter at the second address, in case it remains undelivered at the first

address. However, since according to the petitioner, he had already shifted from

Lal Kuan as disclosed in the registration form sometime in the year 1998 whereas

the allotment came to be made to him only by way of draw of lots held on

8.10.1999 and the demand cum allotment letter was issued to his father sometime

in April, 2000, no useful purpose would have been served by DDA sending the

demand cum allotment letter at the residential address which had been disclosed in

the registration application. It was incumbent upon the father of the petitioner to

disclose the changed address to DDA when he shifted from the address which he

had disclosed at the time of registration. His having not done so, the petitioner

cannot blame DDA for not sending the allotment letter at the residential address

since, sending the allotment letter at the previous residential address would have

been an exercise in futility.

4. A perusal of the registration form would show that the address disclosed in

the form was K.R.Studio, Khub Ram Photographer, Pehladpur, New Delhi. The

same was the address given in the demand cum allotment letter. Thus, DDA sent

the allotment letter at the occupational address disclosed by the petitioner. The

allotment letter was received back with the endorsement 'incomplete address'. If

the father of the petitioner gave incomplete address to DDA, he has to blame only

himself for it and no blame can be shifted to DDA for his own lapse in not

furnishing the complete postal address.

For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the writ petition. The same is

hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

V.K. JAIN, J.

MAY 15, 2013 rb