Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 172 (DEL)

MEHANGA RAM SAINI v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2003-02-18

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

body2003
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. ( 1 ) ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent accepts notice of rule. ( 3 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. ( 4 ) THE petitioner registered himself under the Rohini Residential Scheme for allotment of a plot in 1981 giving preference of a 90 sq. mtr. plot. The petitioner was successful in the draw of lots held on 27th March 1991 and an allotment letter was issued on 28th October 1993: The allotment was cancelled on 21st February 1997 in view of the fact that the petitioner had not deposited the amount in pursuance to the allotment letter. No show cause notice was issued during this period. ( 5 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner never received the allotment letter and thus there could be no occasion for the petitioner to deposit the amount. The original records have been produced before the court and have been perused. The records show that an enquiry was held into the aspect of delivery of allotment letter as also the issuance of the same by the respondent. In terms of the noting of the dealing assistant dated 17th May 2000, it was found that there was no proof of the same available. The matter was again directed to be examined as per records and finally a noting was made by the Director (RL) on 21st July 2000 and approved by the VC. In terms of the said noting, there is a finding to the following effect: "the plot in question was allotted to Shri Mehanga Ram Saini through the draw of lots held on 27. 3. 91. Shri Saini has been representing for issuing of the demand-cum-allotment letter. The demand-cum-allotment letters to the successful allottees of draw held on 27. 3. 91 were issued in 1993. tn this case, the demand letter was allegedly issued on 28. 10. 93. The allotment of the plot was cancelled vide letter dated 21. 2. 97 on account of non-payment of the demanded cost. But the facts remains that the allotment letter had not been served upon the applicant. This has been confirmed by the Branch and the Randd Section. tn this case, the demand letter was allegedly issued on 28. 10. 93. The allotment of the plot was cancelled vide letter dated 21. 2. 97 on account of non-payment of the demanded cost. But the facts remains that the allotment letter had not been served upon the applicant. This has been confirmed by the Branch and the Randd Section. " ( 6 ) THE aforesaid finding as it is shows that there is no proof of the despatch or delivery of the allotment letter. ( 7 ) AN allotment letter has subsequently been issued on 4th February 2003 allotting plot No. 140, Pocket 9, Section 21. Rohini (60 sq. mts.) in favour of the petitioner. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner on instructions submits that the petitioner is willing to accept the said plot of the said measurement but the cost should be as on the date when the earlier allotment letter was issued to the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be penalised for the non-service/non-issue of the allotment letter. ( 9 ) I am in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The findings of the Department have itself shown that there is no proof of despatch or receipt of the allotment letter. Further, it took almost three and a half years for any action to be taken for cancellation of the allotment from 28th October 1993 to 21 st February 1997. The petitioner cannot be penalised for the negligence or the inaction of the respondent. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of the plot which has been allotted to the petitioner vide allotment letter 4th February 2003, but at the same cost as in the allotment letter dated 28th October 1993. A fresh allotment letter he issued to the petitioner accordingly within a period of four weeks and on the petitioner depositing the payment in pursuance thereof and completing necessary formalities, the possession of the plot be handed over within a period of two weeks thereafter. ( 11 ) THE writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.