Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2238 (DEL)

KAMAL MATHUR v. D. D. A.

2006-12-01

S.RAVINDRA BHAT

body2006
JUDGMENT S. Ravindra Bhat, J.- This writ petition was heard for disposal since it addresses a limited dispute for resolution by the Court. 2. The writ petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent (hereafter referred to as the "DDN) to allot flat No. 83, Sector-17, Pocket-D, Phase-II, ground floor in Dwarka (hereafter referred to as "the flat"). The petitioner had registered with the DDA in its New Pattern Registration Scheme, in 1979. The DDA was intimated about change of address of the registrant on 25.6.97. This letter was acknowledged on 14.8.97. 3. It is claimed that in 1999-2000, the petitioner visited the DDA to enquire about the fate of her registration and the chances of allotment. Eventually some time in 2003, she was informed that her case had been considered and the competent authority had approved to include her name on 30.8.2000 for allotment of a flat on current costs basis. Her name was included on 30.8.2000. Apparently a demand cum-allotment letter was issued on 20.3.2001 for the block dates, 20.3.2001 to 27.3.2001, which was sent to the wrong/old address. As a result it was returned undelivered. The petitioner claims that in spite of this position the DDA is not issuing a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter. 4. The DDA in its counter affidavit has adverted to issuance of a demand cum-allotment letter on 11.9.98. However, it avers that due to typographical error in the name, the allotment letter was returned undelivered. It also states that she had represented to it in 2000 about the forwarding of the letter to the wrong address. 5. The DDA claims, and Mr. Rajesh Pathak on its behalf contends that the petitioners name was included in a draw of lots (as per orders of the competent authority) on 31.8.2000, and allotment made in respect of a flat at Dwarka, due to bona fide mistake. It is contended that as per entitlement of the allottee, the flat should have been in Narela zone. 6. It is also contended that the policy of DDA that the old cost would be changed without interest, as per circular dated 21.11.2002, is inapplicable since in this case, the registrant would have known that priority matured in 1996, but did not yet approach the DDA, and deposit the consideration for the flat. 7. The original records of the case were produced by the DDA. 7. The original records of the case were produced by the DDA. As per the noting of the Director, dated 24.2.2006, the allotment letter, issued in 1998 was received back due to wrong description of the registrant. The competent authoritys decision of 30.3.2000 was to include the registrants name in a later draw, on current cost basis. The allotment letter, issued in March 2001, was again despatched to the wrong address. The Commissioners noting of 27.2.2006 is that the flat allotted, if available, or in its absence, a flat in the zone where the registrant had been allotted the flat, ought to be made available. 8. During the pendency of the writ petition an amount of Rs. 10 lakh was deposited by the petitioner with the DDA on 20.03.2006. Earlier, on 2.8.2005, this court had, by an interim order, restrained the DDA from allotting the flat to anyone else. 9. The Court had, having regard to the overall circumstances, by order dated 22.5.2006 required that the three persons, who were said to have advanced amounts to the petitioner, ought to be present in Court. Subsequently, those three persons, namely, Mr. Uday Veer Singh, Mr. Vinod Kumar and Mr. Naresh Kumar filed affidavits on 7.11.2006. All of them affirmed that they were well known to the petitioner and had advanced temporary loans, to enable her to secure the flat. 10. The narrow question which requires consideration is whether in the circumstances, the plea put forward by the DDA that the flat ought not to be allotted but in stead another flat in some other zone ought to be made available. 11. The materials on record and the original files of the DDA show that on both occasions i.e. in 1998 as well as in 2001, the petitioner did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. Those were on account of carelessness of the DDA, which had been intimated that the change of address of the petitioner (a fact duly noted in its records); yet the allotment letters were issued at the wrong address and demands could not be complied with by the petitioner. Now to compound the error, the DDA is putting forward the plea that the petitioner is not entitled to the flat. I am not persuaded with this submission. Now to compound the error, the DDA is putting forward the plea that the petitioner is not entitled to the flat. I am not persuaded with this submission. After accepting her request in the year 2000 and including her name in the draw of lots on the basis of current costs as applicable then, in respect of the Dwarka flat, the DDA cannot legitimately claim another bona fide error and again make her wait, a third time for allotment in another zone. 12. The noting of the Commissioner, proceeds on the footing that the petitioner cannot be granted a flat at Dwarka but will have to be given one at Narela. In the facts of this case, the stand of the DDA is unreasonable, to say the least. It is in effect seeking advantage of its own previous mistakes. If, in fact the policy were to be reasonably applied, there is no question of current costs as on 2001 being made applicable. However, that option has not even been considered. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is clearly entitled to the relief. 13. The DDA shall, therefore, adjust the amount as indicated in the demand cum-allotment letter dated 20.3.2001/27.3.2001, from the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, paid/deposited by the petitioner on 20.3 .2006. The balance amount shall be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks from today. The possession of the flat shall be handed over in terms of this direction within six weeks. Further consequential steps towards execution of conveyance deed, etc. shall be completed within four weeks of the compliance by the petitioner of procedural formalities. 14. The petition is allowed in the above terms. Order dasti. Petition allowed.