Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1898 (DEL)

NARESH KUMAR v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

2007-11-19

GITA MITTAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J. (Oral) - The present petition assails the action of the DDA in cancelling allotment of a flat allotted to him. The petitioner was an applicant with the DDA in respect of a Janta flat in the NPRS of 1979. There is no dispute that the allotment of the flat matured in favour of the petitioner in the year 1990. This allotment was cancelled on 17th September, 1990 on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make payment and had not submitted the required papers. 2. The petitioner has contended that on receipt of demand-cum-allotment letter dated 24th April, 1990 which stipulated the last date of payment as 1st August, 1990, the petitioner, made payments towards this flat in terms of the allotment letter dated 16th July, 1990. Reliance is placed on the deposit of documents by him on 17th September, 1990 against receipt. Despite these facts having been brought to the notice of the DDA, a demand for cancellation charges was raised upon him. 3. Mr. Kinra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner complied with the illegal demand and deposited on 27th October, 1990 a sum of Rs. 1,383/- towards the cancellation charges. It is pointed but that on the petitioners representation in public hearing, his name was included in the draw of lots held on 14th February, 1991 when the petitioner was allotted a flat bearing No. 13, First Floor, Sector 11, Pocket B-5, Rohini, Delhi on hire purchase basis. The petitioner submits that he has not received any demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of this allotment. 4. The writ petition has been filed premised on the assertion that no allotment was made in favour of the petitioner despite passage of all this time and the amount of the petitioner is also lying with the DDA. This writ petition has been filed praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the DDA to hold a draw of lots and to make an allotment of a similar flat in favour of the petitioner in terms of the allotment already effected. 5. On behalf of the DDA, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned Counsel has opposed grant of relief to the petitioner contending that the DDA had validly issued a demand-cum-allotment letter in the block dates between 24th July, 1991 and 30th July, 1991. 5. On behalf of the DDA, Mr. Yeeshu Jain, learned Counsel has opposed grant of relief to the petitioner contending that the DDA had validly issued a demand-cum-allotment letter in the block dates between 24th July, 1991 and 30th July, 1991. As this letter was returned back by the postal authorities with the remarks that the addressee had "left without address" and the last date for making payment expired on 28th October, 1991, allotment of this flat was cancelled immediately. The DDA submits that it had thereafter demanded the cancellation charges of Rs. 2,557/- from the petitioner by the letter dated 17th July, 1995 but the petitioner failed to make this deposit. On this basis, the DDA contends that the petitioner is disentitled to any relief. The writ petition is opposed also on the grounds of delay and laches. 6. Mr. Kinra, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has drawn my attention to a policy decision taken in file No. 195(155)/93 whereby the DDA had notified that in case a letter is received back with the remarks that the addressee has left the house, the DDA was required to issue the demand-cum-allotment letter on the same address. It was further directed that this letter has also to be sent on the occupational address which was given on the registration application. 7. From the facts afore-noticed and stated on record, it is apparent that no effort was made by the DDA to serve the demand-cum-allotment letter upon the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the stand of the DDA is astonishing, The petitioner is an applicant who has applied for an allotment of Janta flat. The admitted position is that despite receipt of payment from the petitioner as back as on 16th July, 1990, the first allotment made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the DDA unjustifiably. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to wrongfully deposit cancellation charges of Rs. 1,383/- which also the petitioner did under protest. Instead of restoring the plot which had been so wrongfully cancelled, the respondent admittedly considered the petitioner for allotment afresh in the draw of lots held on 14th February, 1991. 9. The admitted position in the counter affidavit is that the demand-cum-allotment letter was returned back with the remarks "that the same could not be served as the petitioner had left without address". 10. Mr. 9. The admitted position in the counter affidavit is that the demand-cum-allotment letter was returned back with the remarks "that the same could not be served as the petitioner had left without address". 10. Mr. N. Kinra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that this was an incorrect endorsement and that the address of the petitioner had not changed. 11. Be that as it may, the postal remarks it self had communicated to the DDA that the demand has not been served upon the petitioner. In this background, no punitive action could have been "taken against the petitioner for non-compliance of the demand which has not even been served upon the petitioner. 12. In any case, the DDA had lying with it not only the amount of Rs.1,383/- which stood deposited as cancellation charges, but also the amount of Rs. 14,105/- which has been "deposited by the petitioner by the demand draft dated 13th July, 1990. This amount was lying with the DDA since 16th July, 1990. The DDA stood duly informed by the petitioner of this deposit made by him. 13. In the facts noticed above, it was not open for the DDA to treat the second allotment of the plot bearing No. 13, first floor, Sector 11, Pocket B5, Rohini, Delhi as having been cancelled for it has failed to serve the demand letter upon the petitioner. It therefore has to be held that the demand for cancellation charges purportedly made by the letter dated 17th July, 1995 was certainly unwarranted. 14. Assuming that such demand could have been validly made, it was open for the DDA to adjust the amount of Rs. 2,557/- being demanded towards cancellation charges from the amount of the petitioner which was lying with it. However, certainly, the petitioner could not have been deprived of the allotment which effected in his favour since 1991 in this manner. 15. The petitioner deposited the amount towards the Registration with the DDA as back as in the year 1979. He has been deprived of the allotment by the wrongful acts of the DDA. The petitioner has made payment to the DDA against the demand made by it in the year 1990 which the DDA continues to retain. 15. The petitioner deposited the amount towards the Registration with the DDA as back as in the year 1979. He has been deprived of the allotment by the wrongful acts of the DDA. The petitioner has made payment to the DDA against the demand made by it in the year 1990 which the DDA continues to retain. It is an admitted position that even after the assumed automatic cancellation in the year 1991, the DDA has made no efforts to call upon the petitioner to take refund of the amount. Certainly, the action of the DDA is neither bona fide nor fair. 16. In this background, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the registration and entitlement of the flat. It is certainly necessary to be borne in mind that the registration of the 1971 has even matured almost more than 15 years after application was made admittedly in the year 1990 and then in 1991. I find that there is no challenge to the assertion of the petitioner that he has been running from pillar to post and continuously approaching the DDA to effect allotment of the flat in his favour. In this view of the matter, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. The DDA is directed to restore allotment of the second flat bearing No. 13, first floor, Sector 11, Pocket B-5, Rohini, Delhi in favour of the petitioner in case the same is still available for allotment. 18. In case no such flat is available, the petitioner shall be considered for allotment of a similar flat in the East Zone wherein he was allotted flat earlier. In case no regular draw is being held, the DDA shall consider the petitioner for allotment in its mini draw of lots which, in any case, shall be held within a period of six weeks from today. The petitioner shall be liable to pay the cost thereof on the same basis and in terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter which was issued within the block dates 24th July, 1991 and 30th July, 1991. The petitioner would be permitted to make payment of the amount in instalments. The demand-cum-allotment letter will be issued to the petitioner within 30 days of the mini draw of lots. 19. Mr. The petitioner would be permitted to make payment of the amount in instalments. The demand-cum-allotment letter will be issued to the petitioner within 30 days of the mini draw of lots. 19. Mr. N. Kinra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that inasmuch as the petitioner is being considered for draw of allotment on the rates communicated in 1991, he does not press for interest to be paid by the DDA on the amounts of Rs. 14,105/- and Rs. 1,383/- wrongly deposited with the DDA. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be required to pay any further cancellation charges. 20. In view of the afore noticed facts, in my view, the present case is a fit case where the DDA shall be required to pay costs to the petitioner. Further valuable judicial time has been caused to be expended on a matter in which the action of the DDA is admittedly contrary to the policy and rules of allotment of flats. The DDA shall be required to compensate the petitioner and the system for the time spent with Courts which are quantified at Rs. 30,000/- which shall be apportioned between the petitioner, Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee and the National Legal Aid Fund. The costs shall be deposited within a period of two weeks from today. 21. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to observe that several such cases are being filed. These cases are required to be considered by the DDA so that petitioners are not harassed and Court time is not unnecessarily wasted. These leases are being placed before the Court in which long arguments are addressed. The DDA shall, therefore, consider matters which can be disposed of as per the law and the applicable policies and suggest appropriate remedy in respect thereof. Dasti. Writ Petition allowed.