Subhash Chander vs The Vice Chairman, Dda & Anr.
2015 Latest Caselaw 3189 Del

*                 HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                      W.P.(C) No.2938/2014

                                            Decided on : 21st April, 2015

SUBHASH CHANDER                                           .....Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr.K.K. Sharma, Advocate.

                            Versus

THE VICE CHAIRMAN, DDA & ANR.            .....Respondents
                  Through: Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey,
                           Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI

V.K. SHALI, J.

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction that

the respondents should allot flat No.667, 2nd Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-

2, Group-I, Narela, Delhi or in any other LIG flat of the same category

under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) 1979 on the same

terms and conditions on which the earlier flat was allotted to him.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner had got

himself registered under NPRS-1979 for allotment of LIG flat vide

Application No.Z138835 and Registration No.42065. He was assigned

priority No.38161. The petitioner made a request on 24th July, 1998 that

his address be changed to B-990, Shastri Nagar, near Hanuman Mandir,

Delhi-52 from G-15, J.J. Colony, Wazirpur, Delhi. And the same was

duly acknowledged by the respondents/DDA vide letter dated

10.08.2008. On 11th Feb 2000 the respondents held a draw and allotted a

flat bearing No.667, 2nd Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-2, Group-I, Narela,

Delhi to the petitioner herein. It is alleged that the demand-cum-

allotment letter with the block dates 30th March to 13th April, 2000 was

issued to the applicant at the address B-990, Shakti Nagar, Near

Hanuman Mandir, Delhi-52 but the same came undelivered. It is averred

by the petitioner that having received no intimation for a long period of

time from the respondents, he vide letter dated 9.03.2006 sought enquiry

about the status of the registration of his flat. In response to the aforesaid

query the petitioner was intimated that a LIG Flat bearing no. 667, 2 nd

Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket 2, Group-1, Narela, Delhi had been allotted to

him but due to in action on the part of the plaintiff the same stood

cancelled vide letter dated 25.04.2006. On 11th May, 2006 the petitioner

took up the matter with the respondent, intimating them that he had not

received the allotment-cum-demand letter at his correct address as the

name of the colony was wrongly mentioned as Shakti Nagar instead of

Shastri Nagar and therefore inadvertently he could not deposit the money.

It is alleged by the petitioner that instead of admitting their mistake of

having sent the allotment-cum-demand letter at a wrong address the

respondent sent the letter dated 25th May, 2009 asking the petitioner to

explain as to how he received the letter dated 10th August, 1998 in which

also the name of the colony was wrongfully mentioned as Shakti Nagar

while as he was living in Shastri Nagar. The petitioner informed the

respondent that he was able to receive the same as the post man was

aware of his address and Shastri Nagar was adjoining colony with the

same pin number therefore the letter was delivered to him. The petitioner

has asserted that throughout his correspondence with the respondent he

has been mentioning his correct present address but the respondent

department has failed to make amends and rather has chosen to cancel the

allotment of the petitioner. On the basis of these facts he has sought the

allotment of the Flat No.667, 2nd Floor, Sector-A-10, Pocket-2, Group-I,

Narela, Delhi at the same cost at which it was reflected in the demand-

cum-allotment letter or alternatively it has been prayed that a similar flat

may be allotted to him at the same cost.

3. The respondent filed its reply and admitted the factum of the

petitioner being registered under the NPRS Scheme with the details

furnished by him. It was also admitted by them that on 24 th July, 1998

the petitioner had applied for change of his residence from original place

to Shastri Nagar. However, it has been stated that curiously the original

letter dated 24th July, 1998 has not been found available on the record of

the DDA. It has been admitted by them that the demand-cum-allotment

letter was issued to the petitioner at B-990, Shakti Nagar for the block

dates and the said demand-cum-allotment letter was required to comply

with the terms and conditions given therein failing which there was an

automatic cancellation in the event of amount not being paid by 12 th July,

2000 as mentioned in the allotment letter. The allotment was also stated

to be subject to the terms and conditions as given in the brochure as well

as DDA (Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations,

1968.

4. It has also been stated by the respondent that the NPRS Scheme

has been closed in 2004 and before closure, a public notice was made in

the leading newspaper "Navbharat Times" intimating all the registrants

that some demand-cum-allotment-letters have been received undelivered

from the postal authorities and such registrants may contact the Deputy

Director, LIG on Monday or Thursday along with identify proof within

15 days of the publication of the notice. However the appellant failed to

respond and taken action.

5. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner himself has

admitted that he received the letter at his Shastri Nagar address as the

post man was known to him and now he cannot resile from the said stand

for the future correspondences.

6. Despite the, public notice having been issued the petitioner failed

to act upon it and the amount was not deposited. Further in response to

the public notice no grievance was raised regarding the non-receipt of the

allotment-cum-demand letter, therefore the allotment automatically stood

cancelled.

7. It has been averred that after a lapse of about

6 years the petitioner vide letter dated 9th March 2006 intimated the DDA

that he did not receive the demand cum allotment letter issued by the

DDA while as the respondents had already issued a letter on 25th April

2006 March, informing the petitioner that his allotted flat has been

cancelled due to non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the

allotment letter and he was requested to apply for refund. It has been

stated that the petitioner despite having been sent these communications

kept sleeping over the issue for a considerable period of time and

approached the Court only in 2014 after a lapse of almost 14 years and

therefore this delay of 14 years is fatal to the case of the petitioner and the

petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.

8. The petitioner has filed his rejoinder and contested the averments

made in the counter affidavit so far as the delay and latches is concerned.

However, no reasonable explanation has been furnished by him and has

reiterated only with respect to the wrong address at which the letter of

demand-cum-allotment had has been sent.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through

the record. I have also requisitioned the original record of DDA and

perused the same. The controversy in the matter is a very narrow one.

The petitioner himself admitted that his letter dated 24.07.1998 for

change of communication address was acknowledged by the respondents

vide letter dated 10.08.1998 which is admittedly received by him.

Curiously this letter also had the address of Shakti Nagar and if he could

receive this letter, then there is no reason to assume that he would not

have received the demand-cum-allotment letter. It is surprising that the

petitioner chose to sleep over the matter for nearly eight years before

waking up from his slumber and requesting the DDA for the change of

his communication address. There is no plausible reason as to why after

having been put to notice as to the discrepancy in the address, which is

prima facie evident from the letter dated 10.08.1988, any reasonable man

would wait for such a long period before taking action upon the same.

Therefore the case of the petitioner that his address was B-990, Shastri

Nagar while as the demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him at the

address of B-990, Shakti Nagar holds no water. It is curious that the

original representation dated 24th July, 1998 is not on the record. So far

as the respondents are concerned they would not be benefitted by not

producing the letter sent by the petitioner as they are admitting that the

demand-cum-allotment letter has been sent at Shakti Nagar address but it

is well possible that the representation which was sent by the petitioner

for change of address was having misspelling or the word Shastri was

written in such a manner that it may be read by any person as Shakti

Nagar which led to this confusion meaning thereby the disappearance of

the letter from the record would benefit the petitioner rather than the

respondent. The signature of the petitioner on the petition as well as on

the other documents, show that the petitioner signs in Hindi and therefore

does not seem to be a well read person. So the disappearance of the said

letter can conveniently be taken to be in the interest of the petitioner.

10. Even if this fact is ignored the petitioner himself has admitted that

the post man who had gone to deliver the letter dated 10th August 1998,

addressed to B-990, Shakti Nagar having pin code of 52, gave the same to

him at Shastri Nagar. If that be so, the petitioner had the intimation of the

letter in the year 1998 itself and could have intimated the respondent

immediately with respect to the discrepancy in the address. Further the

petitioner also failed to act upon the public notice published in the

national daily newspaper.There was no justification or reasonable

explanation given by him as to why he did not comply with the terms and

conditions of the demand-cum-allotment letter by depositing the money.

It is totally unacceptable and unreasonable for the petitioner to have

waited till 2006 and then in the year 2006 raised the grievance for the first

time that the demand-cum-allotment letter has been sent to him at a

wrong address and it appears that he has tried to take advantage of the

same.

11. Even if this aspect of having approached the DDA in the year 2006

after a lapse of 6-7 years for allotment of a flat in respect of which he was

declared successful in the year 2000 is ignored still he ought to have

rushed to the Court at the earliest possible opportunity. On the contrary

the petitioner has filed the writ petition in the year 2014 raising the

grievance of letter of allotment having not been received by him at his

Shastri Nagar address and the same having been sent at the wrong

address. It is common knowledge and the same is recorded in the official

file as well, that in Shakti Nagar the addresses do not have alphabetical

block numbers like A, B, C & D etc. but have numerical block numbers.

If this is the numbering of the houses in Shakti Nagar, obviously these

minor corrections in the addresses are corrected off by the post man of

the area who tries to deliver the letter to the addressee by making

necessary rectifications as far as it is possible and this is apparently what

has happened. The petitioner himself has admitted that the post man was

known to him and he delivered either the letter to him at Shastri Nagar or

he got it corrected. In any event, the factum of demand-cum-allotment

letter was known to him and he ought to have complied with the same.

He defaulted in acting upon the demand cum allotment letter and as a

consequence of which it has resulted in an automatic cancellation of the

flat. Even after the said cancellation the petitioner could have been given

the benefit of allotment if he had rushed to the Court at the earliest

possible opportunity. But in the facts and circumstances of the case,

when a public notice is issued and the scheme itself is closed in 2004.

Further the petitioner chooses to not respond to the same and rather waits

for 06 years to approach the Court after the allotment and files the

petition after a lapse of 08 years even after being seized of the situation in

2006. Applying the maxim of vigilantibus non dormientibus jura

subverniunt that is equity aids the vigilant litigant and not those who

slumber upon their rights, there are no two doubts that there has been

gross negligence on the part of the petitioner which has resulted in the

forfeiture of his claim to get any relief from the Court.

12. For the above mentioned reasons, I feel that the writ petition of the

petitioner is totally mis-conceived as the same is barred by inordinate

delay and latches and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

13. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

V.K. SHALI, J.

APRIL 21, 2015/ad