Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1141 (DEL)

SUDESH KAPOOR v. D. D. A.

2007-05-25

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)-The petitioner registered with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS, 1979) for allotment of an MIG Flat on 25.9.1979. The petitioner gave two addresses in the application form as required. The residential address given was 9070, Gali No.2, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. As against the column Occupational Address, the petitioner indicated: Sudesh Saree Emporium, 970, Bhojpura, Maliwara, Nai Sadak, Delhi-110006. 2. The petitioner changed her residence to D-171, New Rajendra Nagar, New Delhi, but did not inform the DDA of the changed address since her occupational address remained unchanged. 3. The petitioners turn matured in 2002 when her name was included in the draw. She was allotted a flat No. 410 (Ground Floor) Pocket-B, Sector 13, Dwarka. The DDA sent the demand-cum-allotment letter to her previous residential address as indicated in the application form. The cover was returned undelivered. Consequently, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. 4. The petitioner came to know of this development when she attended a public hearing in the office of the Commissioner (Housing) DDA in September 2005. Thereafter she made representations on 8.9.2005 and 22.9.2005 to the Commissioner (Housing) DDA. A third representation was made on 13.2.2006 to the Deputy Director. By its letter dated 7.4.2006, the DDA expressed its inability to allot any flat. The petitioner then approached this Court with the present petition. 5. Mr. R.K. Saini, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points to the fact that the DDA ought to have sent the demand letter to the occupational address as well. He relies on the judgment of this Court in Hirdaypal Singh v. DDA, 2007(II) AD (Delhi) 705. 6. Mr. Rajiv Bansal, learned Counsel for the DDA states that it is not required to send the demand letter to each and every address available in the file. It was residential address which was relevant for this purpose. According to him, when admittedly the petitioner did not inform the DDA of the change in the residential address till 13.2.2006, it was not incumbent on the DDA to send the demand letter to any other address. He sought to distinguish the judgment in Hirdaypal Singh by submitting that if this rule were to apply in every case, it would cause tremendous administrative difficulties for the DDA. 7. The Court has perused the file of the DDA. He sought to distinguish the judgment in Hirdaypal Singh by submitting that if this rule were to apply in every case, it would cause tremendous administrative difficulties for the DDA. 7. The Court has perused the file of the DDA. The application form clearly indicates residential address as well as the occupational address. There is no reason why this Court should not apply the decision in Hirdaypal Singh v. DDA to the facts of the present case. The rationale for the decision in that case which held that it was obligatory on the DDA to send the demand letter to every address available on the file, was explained in the following manner in para 5: "To the Court it appears that the intimation of allotment ought to have been set not only to the present address available on file but, if the allotment letter was returned undelivered, to the permanent address as well. From the point of view of the DDA this would have not only cost nothing to the DDA but it would have ensured that the DDA has made every possible effort to reach the allotment letter to the petitioner. From the petitioners perspective, despite having intimated to the DDA his permanent residence, its failure to send the allotment letter there, meant that it resulted in the cancellation of his allotment. The loss to the petitioner of an allotment, for which he had been waiting since 1979, would indeed be far greater in such a situation. It must be realised that as a condition of eligibility for allotment of a flat under the NPRS, 1979 an applicant should not own any other permanent residence. It is not difficult to imagine that persons who do not own premises in this city are quite likely to rent a residence and also periodically shift such residence taken on rent. Therefore, while it is certainly the obligation of such applicant to inform the DDA of the change of address, there is also a corresponding obligation of the DDA to attempt to send the allotment letter to every possible address of the applicant that has been intimated to it and is available on its records. " 8. The above rationale would apply in the present case as well. " 8. The above rationale would apply in the present case as well. The Court finds that a similar approach was adopted by this Court earlier in the judgment dated 19.2.2003 in WP(C) 1014 of 2002 (Satish Kumar Nayar v. DDA), 109 (2004) DLT 946, which judgment is also affirmed in appeal. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to succeed. 9. No interim order was passed when notice was issued in this writ petition and it is not clear if the same flat which was allotted earlier to the petitioner is available for allotment. Accordingly, the policy dated 20.12.2002 of the DDA in regard to the failure to send demand letter to the address available on the file will apply here as well. The directions similar to those issued in Hirdaypal Singh, are required to be issued in the present case. 10. The writ petition is allowed and the following directions are hereby issued: A. The DDA will, within four weeks from today and not later than 25.6.2007, issue an allotment-cum-demand letter to the petitioner of a flat at the same locality and of the same size and charge the petitioner the cost which was applicable in the year when the allotment was made, in accordance with the policy decision dated 20.12.2002. B. Since the cancellation of the allotment is illegal, the petitioner will not be required to pay any restoration charges. C. After the petitioner completes all the formalities and makes the payment as demanded, the DDA will hand over possession of the flat to the petitioner within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 11. With the above directions the writ petition is allowed with no orders as to cost. Writ Petition allowed.