Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1418 (DEL)

TAJINDER KAUR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2007-07-19

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
S. MURALIDHAR, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner here applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern registration Scheme, 1979 (NPRS) and was given a registration No. 4970 and priority No. 9040. Pursuant to a draw of lots, the petitioner was allotted an mig flat in Rohini and a demand-cum-allotment letter with block dates 3. 1. 1991 to 10. 1. 1991 was issued. The petitioner could not pay the amount and requested for cancellation. The cancellation charges of Rs. 900/- were paid by her on 25. 3. 1991. As per the policy of the Delhi Development Authority ('dda'), notwithstanding the cancellation the registration under the NPRS would remain alive. ( 2 ) THE petitioner states that she kept visiting the DDA between 1999 and 2004 and was informed by them from time to time that as per her priority, her name would be included at the tail end in the draw of lots s that were to be held. Finally she submitted an application under the Right to Information Act ('rti Act') on 31. 5. 2006. 2. The stand of the DDA is that in cases where the records of the DDA have been misplaced or are untraceable, it is possible that a name has been missed and could not be included in the draw of lots. To cover such contingencies of missing cases, three public notices were issued by the DDA. The last of such public notice was issued on 5. 2. 2006. Those MIG registrants who had not yet been allotted flats were asked to contact the DDA within 30 days of the notice. It was stated that ?any request received after the expiry of 30 days will not be entertained and summarily rejected. ? It is stated in the counter affidavit since the petitioner did not approach the DDA within the time limit stipulated in the last public notice, her request could not be entertained. ( 3 ) THE records of the case were perused by the Court. The file appears to have been constructed only after the RTI application was received from the petitioner. It is clear from the notings in the file that the main file of the petitioner's allotment was not traceable. The petitioner was called on several occasions and asked to submit documents, which she did. The file appears to have been constructed only after the RTI application was received from the petitioner. It is clear from the notings in the file that the main file of the petitioner's allotment was not traceable. The petitioner was called on several occasions and asked to submit documents, which she did. Thereafter an exercise was undertaken to verify the genuineness of the claim and the identity of the petitioner. This also appears to have been successfully completed. A note was then prepared for approval of allotment of an MIG flat in the tail end priority. The note was in fact prepared after notice was issued by this Court in the present writ petition on 4. 7. 2006. The only factor that was held against the petitioner was that her request was received after the expiry of 30 days as stipulated in the notice dated 5. 2. 2006. ( 4 ) MR. Kinra, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to an earlier policy letter purported to have been approved by the vice Chairman, DDA on 2. 4. 2004 where the stand taken by the DDA was that where no records were traceable, and if any registrant to whom tail end priority was to be assigned had been left out, then ?nobody should be held responsible and subsequently their cases can be considered in the next coming draw. ? ( 5 ) GIVEN the facts of the present case where the petitioner's file went missing from the DDA's office and the fault lay with the DDA and considering the fact that the case was being considered at different levels for including the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots for the purposes of allotment, this court is of the view that the DDA ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for inclusion in a subsequent draw of lots for allotment. It cannot be denied that persons who have applied under the NPRS 1979 have been waiting for many years for their allotments to mature. The policy of the DDA was to permit all those who could not afford to pay the costs in the first instance, to avail a second chance after cancellation of the first allotment. Their registration and priority numbers were, therefore, kept alive. The policy of the DDA was to permit all those who could not afford to pay the costs in the first instance, to avail a second chance after cancellation of the first allotment. Their registration and priority numbers were, therefore, kept alive. It would be harsh if such persons are made to suffer for the reason of their files being misplaced by the DDA. A proactive approach is warranted in such cases. Where the claimant is found to be a genuine person interested in getting the allotment of a flat for herself or himself, and, as in the present case, the delay beyond the deadline stipulated by the DDA is not inordinate, it would not be fair to refuse allotment. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY a direction is issued to the DDA to include the name of the petitioner in next mini draw and allot an MIG flat wherever available. The petitioner will be charged the current cost prevalent as on four months after the last draw which was held for all missing priority cases. The DDA will take the necessary steps within a period of eight weeks from today and issue a demand-cum-allotment letter on or before 1. 10. 2007. The writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. The application stands disposed of. ( 7 ) A copy of this Order be given dasti to the counsel for the parties.