Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1456 (DEL)

BANDANA MUKHERJEE v. D. D. A.

2007-07-23

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)-The petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS), 1979. In the application form she gave her address as F-2249 Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. It is the petitioners case that after the death of her husband on 22.7.1991 she had to change her address and moved to E-1500, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. However, she did not immediately inform the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) of the change of address. 2. The DDA subsequently announced an out-of-turn allotment scheme under which the petitioner made an application by paying the requisite fee. This scheme, inter alia, provided for a quota of allotment to widows. In this application for out-of-turn allotment, against the column requiring her to furnish the address, the petitioner indicated her changed address i.e. E-1500 Netaji Nagar, New Delhi. Against a column enquiring whether she was registered under any other scheme of the DDA, she gave the particulars of the NPRS registration. 3. The admitted position is that the petitioners application for out-of turn allotment was not favourably considered. However, she was never informed of the rejection of her application. When she visited the offices of the DDA some time in 2005 to enquire about the fate of her application for allotment of a flat, she was informed that an allotment-cum-demand letter had already been issued to her with the block dates 25.6.2002 to 5.7.2002 consequent upon her priority maturing and the name being included in the draw held on 30.5.2002. She was also informed that the demand letter had been sent to the address F-2249, Netaji Nagar, New Delhi and had been returned undelivered. Consequently, the allotment stood automatically cancelled. The cancellation letter issued on 1.2.2004 was also returned undelivered. The petitioner then made a representation to the DDA on 18.8.2005 stating that she had already informed the DDA of her change of address in the application for out-of-turn allotment. She requested for an allotment in the same location i.e. Dwarka. This was followed by further representations on 1.9.2005 and 28.12.2005. In the last mentioned representation she mentioned that she was living in a rented house with her son in Delhi although she had moved to Calcutta to her brothers house due to financial problems. 4. She requested for an allotment in the same location i.e. Dwarka. This was followed by further representations on 1.9.2005 and 28.12.2005. In the last mentioned representation she mentioned that she was living in a rented house with her son in Delhi although she had moved to Calcutta to her brothers house due to financial problems. 4. Thereafter on 31.10.2006 the present petition was filed seeking a direction to the DDA to issue a demand-cum-allotment letter either in respect of the same flat, if it was lying vacant, or any other flat at the cost prevalent in 2002 when the petitioners priority matured. 5. The stand of the DDA in its counter affidavit is that if even the changed address was mentioned in the application for out-of-turn allotment that did not automatically mean that the applicant had given an intimation of the changed address in terms of Clause 27 of the brochure issued for the NPRS 1979 registrants. A specific separate intimation had to be given. The rejection of the application under the scheme for out-of-turn allotment was handled by a separate department. Considering that lacs of applications are dealt with under various branches, it cannot be expected that the changed address given under one scheme will automatically be a taken note of for the purposes of another. 6. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, while pointing out that the changed address was definitely available in the DDAs records reiterates with reference to the affidavit filed by the petitioner on 5.2.2007 that the petitioner is in very much need of a flat in Delhi b since she is staying with her son who himself is living in a rented accommodation. She points out that the petitioner shall not be made to suffer for the lack of coordination between the two departments of the DDA. On the other hand it is permitted by Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Counsel for the DDA that the additional affidavit filed shows that the petitioner herself was fully aware that once the case is rejected under the scheme for out-of turn allotment, it gets transferred back to tl1e parent scheme. Ms. On the other hand it is permitted by Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, learned Counsel for the DDA that the additional affidavit filed shows that the petitioner herself was fully aware that once the case is rejected under the scheme for out-of turn allotment, it gets transferred back to tl1e parent scheme. Ms. Chandra states that the DDA cannot be expected to take note of the change of address which is given in the application form filed under the scheme for out-of turn allotment when the particular requirement of a specific intimation in terms of Clause 27 of the brochure for the NPRS 1979 has not been complied with. She also submits that this is not a case of any fault of the DDA in failing to include the petitioners name in a draw and therefore cannot be treated at par with the missed priority cases. 7. After considering the submissions of learned Counsel on both sides, it appears to the Court that that the petitioner was under a bona fide impression that the address indicated by her in the application made for out-of-turn allotment would be taken note of by the DDA. This belief cannot be rejected as unbelievable or incredible. There may be some justification for the DDA to contend that since it receives lacs of applications it cannot, in the absence of the specific intimation particular to the NPRS, be expected to take note of a change of address which is mentioned in an application made for an out-of-turn allotment. However, when viewed from the perspective of an applicant who is asked to give the address as well as the reference to the NPRS data, it would not -be unreasonable to expect that the address given last would in fact be taken note of. A submission was sought to be made by Ms. Chandra that while processing an application under the scheme for an out-of-turn allotment, the DDA calls for the NPRS file only for the purposes of verifying if an allotment has already been made thereunder. That is entirely a mechanism that the DDA has evolved for its administrative convenience. In the absence of a disclosure by the DDA to that effect an applicant cannot be expected to know how the DDA actually works and how different departments of the DDA coordinate. That is entirely a mechanism that the DDA has evolved for its administrative convenience. In the absence of a disclosure by the DDA to that effect an applicant cannot be expected to know how the DDA actually works and how different departments of the DDA coordinate. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought not, in the facts and circumstances, be denied an allotment. 8. At the same time while balancing the two equities of the matter, this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the petitioner approached the DDA only some time in August 2005 to enquire about the fate of her application for allotment. While some part of the blame must be attributed to the DDA for not sending the demand letter at address indicated by the petitioner in her application form, the petitioner should also bear some part of the consequence of not approaching the DDA earlier. 9. The petitioner has made reference to certain judgments of this Court in matters concerning change of address - Delhi Development Authority v. Jaspal Singh, LP A No. 26/2000 dated 10.8.2000; T.R.S. Vardhan v. DDA, C.W.P. 203/1995 dated 6.11.1995; Mrinal Kanti Ghosh v. Delhi Development Authority, W.P.(C) No. 2558/2000 dated 17.8.2000; D.B. Bose v. Delhi Development Authority, W.P.(C) No, 1816/1998 dated 30.8.1999. Ms. Chandra has pointed out how facts of the present case are different from the facts in each of the said cases where a specific intimation was indeed given which has not been taken note of by the DDA. 10. No two cases can be identical and even in the change of address cases there are different sets of facts which call for moulding relief in a different manner in each case. The facts of the present case are indeed peculiar because in none of the earlier judgments was there a situation where the applicants who were registered under the NPRS had also made another application for out-of-turn allotment where the changed address was given. To that extent, it must be clarified that the directions given hereunder would be peculiar to the facts of the present case. 11. To that extent, it must be clarified that the directions given hereunder would be peculiar to the facts of the present case. 11. It is accordingly directed that the DDA will now hold a mini draw for the petitioner subject to availability of any other flat in Dwarka within a period of eight weeks from today and issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter with the cost calculated at the cost prevalent four months after 1.9.2005 i.e. January, 2006. Upon the petitioner making the payment within the time indicated in the fresh demand-cum-allotment letter, and subject to completion of necessary formalities, the petitioner will be put in possession of the flat within a further period of eight weeks. With the above directions, the writ petition and the application stand disposed of with no order as to costs. Petition & Application disposed of.