Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 309 (DEL)

J. S. RAO v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2000-03-15

M.K.SHARMA

body2000
M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THE petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in depriving him of allotment of a SFS flat,"category-Ill in Vasant Kunj and praying for a direction to the said respondents for allotment of such a flat in Vasant Kunj at the price prevalent on the date of his application. ( 2 ) THE petitioner applied on 19. 11. 1979 for allotment of a SFS flat and also deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000. 00 on the same day. The petitioner, at the time of filing of the aforesaid application was residing at C-9, III Campus, New Delhi and accordingly gave the said address in his application. As the respondent/dda even subsequent to that and from time to time invited applications for registration in SFS scheme the petitioner submitted an application on 2. 12. 1981 and also gave a second application on 30. 3. 1982 pursuant to the advertisements published by the respondents. It is stated that till 1984 no order for allotment of a flat was made in favour of the petitioner. Sometime in 1984 the petitioner was sent to the United States of America as a "science COUNSELLOR" in the Indian Embassy and while stationed thus he received a letter from the Accounts Section of the respondent dated 11. 4. 1985. The said letter was addressed at I IT Campus, New Delhi and thereafter re-directed to the petitioner in Washington. By the said letter the, respondents intimated the petitioner that the FDR for Rs. 15,000. 00 was lying ready and that he could collect the same from the office of the respondents. The petitioner replied to the said letter intimating his address of Washington and also enclosed with the said letter the registration certificate and further requested the respondents that the FDR could be posted to his address at Washington. The petitioner returned to India sometime in the month of December, 1988 and joined IIT as Head of the Mechanical Engineering Department. ( 3 ) AS against the advertisement made by the respondent the petitioner made a third application on 2. 2. 1989 for allotment of a flat and in the said application the petitioner gave his address as C-1, IIT Campus, New Delhi. ( 3 ) AS against the advertisement made by the respondent the petitioner made a third application on 2. 2. 1989 for allotment of a flat and in the said application the petitioner gave his address as C-1, IIT Campus, New Delhi. In June 1990, the respondents again advertised in Newspapers giving a last opportunity of allotment of flat in Vasant Kunj from registrants of SFS scheme and the petitioner submitted his 4th application on 24. 7. 1990 vide acknowledgement No. 2769 wherein also the address was given as C-1, IIT Campus, New Delhi. ( 4 ) SOMEWHERE in 1990/1991 the petitioner started receiving letters and telephone calls from various dealers informing him that a flat had been allotted to him in Vasant Kunj. On getting such information the petitioner s wife visited the office of the respondents and met the then Housing Commissioner on 28. 1. 1991 when she was informed that the petitioner himself requested for cancellation of his registration by writing an alleged letter stating therein that he was not interested in Vasant Kunj Flat. It is alleged in the petition that the same was a forged letter as no such letter was ever sent by the petitioner which is also apparent from the fact that he had in fact made a 4th application in the month of July, 1990. Various documents were sent by the petitioner to the respondents thereafter and on inspection of the file it was found that various forged letters alleged to be written by the petitioner appeared on the record, although none of the said letters was sent by the petitioner. As the respondents did not enter the name of the petitioner in the draw held subsequently thereto and did not allot a flat in favour of the petitioner the present petition was filed. ( 5 ) THE respondents filed a reply affidavit contending inter alia that in the year 1987 an application was received in the name of petitioner for allocation of a flat against fresh release for which draw was to be held by the DDA. It is further stated that the petitioner was found successful in the said draw held on 31. 12. 1987 and was allotted a ground floor flat in Pocket B-4, Vasant Kunj. It is further stated that the petitioner was found successful in the said draw held on 31. 12. 1987 and was allotted a ground floor flat in Pocket B-4, Vasant Kunj. It is stated that in the said application form the address of the petitioner was mentioned as E-123, Ashok Vihar Phase-l, and accordingly a demand-cum-allocation letter was issued to the petitioner on the said address on 8. 1. 1988/15. 1. 1988 which however, was received back un-delivered. Another communication was sent thereafter alongwith demand-cum-allocation letter to the address given in the registration application at IIT Campus, New Delhi which again came back un-delivered, after which a letter was received in the name of the petitioner dated 4. 5. 1988 requesting that the demand letter should be issued at E-123, First Floor, Ashok Vihar Phase-l, Delhi - 110052, which was the address at which the earlier demand-cum-allocation letter was issued and was received back un-delivered. ( 6 ) IT is also stated that a complaint was received from the petitioner on 30. 1. 1991 alleging that his signatures in the application dated 4. 11. 1987 were forged and that the letter alleged to have been submitted by him for re-issuance of demand-cum-allotment letter at E-123, First Floor, Ashok Vihar, was also forged. It is stated that since no payment was made against the demand-cum-allocation letter dated 8. 1. 1988/ 15. 1. 1988 the said allocation letter was cancelled. It is also admitted in the said affidavit that his application dated 12. 7. 1990 for allotment of a flat was received by the respondent but since an application was received from the petitioner on 31. 8. 1990 seeking for deletion of the application No. 2769 and for not considering it for allocation in the draw to be held, his name was not entered in the draw of lots and therefore, he is not entitled to allotment of any flat. In the subsequent additional affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that even if the petitioner is to be allotted any flat at the present stage the petitioner shall be required to pay the price at the current rate. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. ( 7 ) IN the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties we heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Mr. Pandey, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the demand-cum-allotment letter issued by the respondents and the order ofallotment in the year 1987 was based on forgery and even the letter for re-addressing the allotment letter to the address at Ashok Vihar was forged, which fact was brought to the notice of the respondents by the petitioner himself. He also stated that the subsequent application for allotment of a flat filed by the petitioner in 1989 and 1990 should have been placed in the draw of lots held for the purpose and by not doing so the respondents have acted illegally, without jurisdiction and thereby depriving the petitioner from getting allotment of a flat in the regular course. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that therefore, a direction is required to be issued to the respondents to allot a flat at Vasant Kunj to the petitioner at the rate prevailing in 1989-90. ( 8 ) WE have heard Ms. Anusuya Salwan appearing for the respondents, who submitted that the application filed by the petitioner in 1990 could not be considered and his name was not placed in the draw of lots as an application was filed by him; withdrawing his name and therefore, his name was rightly not included in the draw of lots for the purpose. ( 9 ) IN the context of the aforesaid submissions we have considered the records of the case and it is found therefrom that the demand-cum-allocation letter issued to the petitioner on 8. 1. 1988/15. 1. 1988 was later on cancelled by the respondent for non payment of the amount as mentioned therein. The said letter was addressed at Ashok Vihar. A complaint has been filed by the petitioner and a specific stand has been taken that his signatures on the said application dated 4. 11. 1987 and in the subsequent letter for re-addressing the demand-cum-allocation letter at Ashok Vihara were forged and that he had no occasion to write such applications. The said allotment admittedly stood cancelled for non-payment of the amount mentioned therein but the petitioner did subsequently file two further applications for allotment of flat i. e. in the year 1989 and 1990. 1987 and in the subsequent letter for re-addressing the demand-cum-allocation letter at Ashok Vihara were forged and that he had no occasion to write such applications. The said allotment admittedly stood cancelled for non-payment of the amount mentioned therein but the petitioner did subsequently file two further applications for allotment of flat i. e. in the year 1989 and 1990. None of the said applications was considered by the respondent and his name was not put in the draw of lots on the alleged ground that subsequently a letter was received from the petitioner withdrawing his name from the draw of lots. The said letter is stated to be a forged one and in fact no such letter is appearing on the record. In these circumstances it appears to us that the respondent failed to discharge their statutory duty by not considering the applications of the petitioner for allotment of a flat pursuant to his applications filed in 1989 and 1990. No letter was placed on record to indicate that the petitioner had in fact withdrawn his name from the draw of lots held pursuant to his applications for allotment of a flat. In the absence of any such document on record the stand taken by the respondent in the counter affidavit cannot be accepted as correct. As the petitioner filed applications for allotment of flat in 1989 and 1990 his case should have been considered by the respondents for such allotment and his name was to be included in the draw of lots held for the purpose. As the respondents failed to discharge their obligations in entering the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held for the purpose, the petitioner was denied a valuable right. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter we are of the considered opinion that the mistake for not entering the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held for allotment of a flat at Vasant Kunj was because the Delhi Development Authority inadvertently did not include his name in the draw of lots. Therefore, for the mistake of the respondent the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of allotment of a flat and cannot be saddled with higher liability. As SFS flat of similar nature has been kept reserved for the petitioner pursuant to interim orders passed by this court. Therefore, for the mistake of the respondent the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of allotment of a flat and cannot be saddled with higher liability. As SFS flat of similar nature has been kept reserved for the petitioner pursuant to interim orders passed by this court. It is brought on record that the project for which the applications were invited in 1989 and 1990 were completed in the year 1992. The petitioner filed his applications for allotment of flat in 1989 and 1990 and the said project as against which he filed his applications came to be completed in the year 1992 and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the price of the flat prevailing in the year 1992. ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid observations made by us it is directed:- (1) that the respondent/dda shall issue a fresh demand notice to the petitioner within 3 weeks from today on the basis of the price prevailing in the year 1992 in respect of the SFS flat. Category III, at Vasant Kunj, New Delhi; (2) that on receipt of the aforesaid demand notice, the same shall be paid by the petitioner within 4 weeks thereafter; and (3) that on payment of the aforesaid amount as directed herein the possession of the flat in question shall be handed over to the petitioner and the petitioner shall also complete all formalities simultaneously. In terms of the aforesaid the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.