Delhi High Court
Dev Raj vs Delhi Development Authority on 19 February, 2014
Author: Jayant Nath
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: February 13, 2014
Judgment Pronounced on: February 19, 2014
+ LPA 625/2013
DEV RAJ ... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Sanjay Poddar, Senior Advocate
instructed by Mr.R.K.Saini and
Mr.Vikram Saini, Advocates
versus
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ....Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Shobhana Takiar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
JAYANT NATH, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is filed against order dated
11.07.2013 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant. The writ petition
was filed seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the action of
respondent/DDA in cancelling the allotment of a flat to the petitioner and in
declining to restore and make alternative allotment at old rate as per policy.
Other connected reliefs were also sought.
2. The appellant states that on 29.12.1989 registered with DDA under its
Special Housing Registration Scheme for SC/ST known as Ambedkar Awas
Yojna for allotment of an MIG flat. Registration fee of `12000 was
deposited.
3. At the time of registration, in the Registration Form the appellant gave
two addresses i.e. (a) current address A-4/548, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi as
current address and (b) permanent address as Dalhousi Road Nehru Nagar
House No,83, Pathankot 1450001.
4. In due course of time, the appellant shifted from Paschim Vihar house
but forgot to inform DDA about the same.
5. The DDA included the name of the appellant in the draw held on
30.7.2003. The appellant was allotted Flat No.275(GF), Pocket 6, Sector 83
Rohini. An Allotment-cum-Demand Letter was issued to the petitioner and
sent at the current address at Paschim vihar. As the appellant had shifted, the
allotment letter was returned undelivered. It is averred that DDA took no
steps to thereafter deliver the allotment letter to the appellant including by
posting the same to the permanent address admittedly given by the appellant
at the time of registration.
6. It is averred that in November 2012 the appellant came across a
public notice issued by DDA regarding completion of allotment of flats in
the Ambedkar Awas Yojna and that the scheme had been closed and those
who have not been allotted should approach DDA for refund. The appellant
approached DDA and made a representation on 4.12.2012 but to no effect.
Hence, the present writ petition was filed.
7. The DDA in its counter affidavit has taken two objections. It is firstly
contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of delay
and laches. It is secondly stated that after the flat was allotted to the
appellant, Allotment-cum-Demand Letter dated 25/30.9.2003 was issued
and sent to the residential address of the appellant at Paschim Vihar. The
same was returned with the postal remarks "no such person in this address".
It is further stated that the permanent address as given by the appellant in the
application form was without any House No. or Street No. and appeared to
be incomplete. Hence, DDA on 05.11.2003 sent another letter to the
appellant at the residential address at Paschim Vihar with a copy to his work
place i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Shakurbasti, Delhi. The letter
addressed to Paschim Vihar address again came back with the same
comments. The letter sent to the occupational address was not received back
undelivered.
8. The impugned order rejected the first objection of the respondent
DDA about delay and laches inasmuch as the appellant did not receive the
Demand-cum-Allotment Letter and could not have approached the court
earlier.
9. Regarding the second objection of DDA, the learned Single Judge
after perusal of the record of the respondent concluded that a false averment
had been made in the Writ Petition that the appellant had mentioned in the
Registration Form his permanent address as "Dalhousie Road, Nehru Nagar,
House No.83, Pathankot-1450001". However, from the original record of
DDA it was apparent that the permanent address as mentioned by the
appellant is "Nehru Nagar, Dalhousi Road, Pathankot". No house number
or street number has been mentioned. Hence, the impugned order
concludes that the appellant has not approached this Court with clean hands
and has tried to mislead the Court. The writ petition was accordingly
dismissed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the alleged
suppression of facts is a bona fide mistake and in any case is not a
suppression or concealment of a material fact. He submits that his client
should not be penalised for the same. He further submits that the appellant
would be ready to pay the rate charged by DDA for similar flats on the date
the appellant filed the present writ petition.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent/DDA strenuously
urges that the DDA had taken adequate steps to serve the appellant as the
Demand-cum-Allotment Letter was sent not only at the current home
address but also at the business address of the appellant. Hence, it is urged
that the impugned order is valid.
12. The scheme of DDA which is the subject matter of the present
petition is of 1989. The allotment was made on 25/30.9.2003 i.e. 14 years
after launch of the scheme. Fourteen years is a long span in the life of an
individual. The explanation of the appellant that he shifted his residence and
did not remember to inform DDA about the new address is a plausible
explanation. Further, given the long delay in allotment of the flat and the
subsequent time gap before filing of the writ petition we are also inclined to
believe the explanation of the appellant that the omission to give the correct
address in the writ petition as given in the application form is a bona fide
mistake. The application to DDA was made in 1989. The present writ is
filed in December 2012 i.e. 23 years later. Memory could certainly fade in
this long time period.
13. The permanent address as given in the application form is a family
house of the appellant. DDA was obliged to send the intimation letter at the
said permanent address also. The local postal authorities are normally quite
familiar with the occupants of different houses especially old residents and
are known to deliver communications which are dispatched at incorrect or
incomplete addresses based on the name of the addressee. It was obligatory
on DDA to attempt to serve the appellant about allotment of the flat at the
given permanent address as given in the application form especially as the
letter to the current address came back unserved.
14. In this context we may refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of
this court in LPA 137/2013 titled DDA vs. Banwari Lal Arya dated March
03, 2013, where this Court held as follows:-
"3. It is not in dispute that despite his permanent address
having been disclosed by the respondent in the application form
itself, no attempt was made by the appellant to send the demand
letter at that address. No justification has been shown by the
appellant for not sending the demand-cum-allotment-letter at
the permanent address of the respondent. In our view, once the
demand-cum-allotment-letter sent at the postal address of the
respondent was received back unserved, it was obligatory for
the appellant to send the said letter at the permanent address
which had been disclosed in the application form. Cancellation
of the allotment without making an attempt to send the
allotment letter at the permanent address of respondent,
disclosed in the application form, cannot be sustained and has
rightly not found favour with the learned Single Judge."
15. In view of the above we set aside the impugned order of the learned
Single Judge and allow the appeal. We direct the DDA to allot a similar flat
in the same area/zone at the rates as applicable on the date the appellant filed
the writ petition.
16. No order as to costs.
JAYANT NATH
(JUDGE)
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 19, 2014
n
