Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 624 (DEL)

SUBHASH CHANDER SETHI v. D. D. A

2007-03-20

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
ORDER (Open Court) 1. The prayer in this writ petition is for a writ of man dam us directing the Delhi Development Authority ( DDA) to treat the case of the petitioner as being covered by the policy of missing priority framed by the DDA. 2. The facts of the present case are not disputed. The petitioner got registered under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 for allotment of an MIG Flat. The petitioners priority matured and in a draw held on 13.3. I 990 he was allotted an MIG Flat bearing No. 7D, Pocket A, Third Floor, Nand Nagri, Delhi. Since the petitioner was not interested in that flat, he requested for cancellation and deposited the cancellation charges on 21.3.1991. 3. The admitted position is that the petitioners registration was kept alive and as per the policy of the DDA, the DDA fixed the seniority/priority of the petitioner for allotment at the tail end of the scheme. The petitioner was under the impression that his priority being at tail end of the seniority of the Registrants, he would be allotted a flat as and when the scheme was likely to close or as and when the registrants with tail end priorities are allotted flats. 4. A draw of lots was held on 31.3.2004 for all tail-end priority registrants in which the name of the petitioner was not included. The petitioner sent a representation to the DDA some time in September, 2005 pointing out the mistake on the part of the DDA in not including the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots. Thereafter the petitioner learnt that he had been allotted a flat in Dwarka. He then approached this Court with the present writ petition on 19.7.2006 seeking a mandamus to the DDA to issue him an allotment-cum-demand letter in respect of the flat allotted to him in Dwarka at the cost prevalent in July, 2004. i.e. four months after the draw held on March, 2004. 5. In its reply the DDA does not deny the fact that the petitioners name was not included in the draw held on 31.3.2004. i.e. four months after the draw held on March, 2004. 5. In its reply the DDA does not deny the fact that the petitioners name was not included in the draw held on 31.3.2004. However, it is contended that a public notice was issued by the DDA on 4.7.2003 calling upon the registrants who go their registration converted from Janta/LIG to that of MIG by the year 1989 and those allottees who submitted their applications for cancellation of allotment for placing their priority at the tail end before December, 1993, contact the DDA with all the 3 relevant records "to update the residential addresses so that when their turn comes, the demand letters of allotted flats can be sent at the proper addresses." 6. The DDA has taken a stand that the petitioner did not approach the DDA pursuant to the said notice dated 4.3.2003 and therefore, the petitioners name could not be included in the draw of lots on 31.3.2004. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached the DDA on 12.9.2005 it was decided by the DDA to allot flat to the petitioner at current cost and his name was included in the draw of lots held on 8.11.2005. It is stated that a Flat bearing No. 88, First Floor, Pocket-A, Sector 17, Phase-II, Dwarka, New Delhi was allotted to the petitioner on the basis of current cost. It is further stated that the demand-cum-allotment letter "shall be issued to the petitioner very shortly". 7. Ms. Richa Kapoor, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the DDA erred in not including the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held on 31.3.2004. She further submits that the cost for the flat is now allotted to the petitioner, should be at the rates prevalent on the date of the draw of lots was held on 31.3.2004. She seeks to rely upon an order dated 21.7.2006 passed by the , learned Single Judge in WP(C) 20250 of 2005, Jay Prakash v. Delhi Development Authority. 8. In reply, Mr. Anil Sapra, learned Counsel appearing for the DDA states that the petitioner had to update his residential address available in the records of the DDA pursuant to a public notice dated 4.3.2003. Since he failed to do so, his name was not included in the draw of lots held on 31.3.2004. 9. The plea taken by the DDA cannot be accepted. Since he failed to do so, his name was not included in the draw of lots held on 31.3.2004. 9. The plea taken by the DDA cannot be accepted. The public notice ssued by the DDA on 4.7.2003 was meant only to update the residential address in the records of the DDA. The said notice does not make it mandatory for all the applicants/registrants, whether or not there had been a change in their addresses given to the DDA, to update the address. In the circumstances, there was no obligation on the part of the petitioner to update his address since there was no change in his address. Consequently, the DDA was not justified in not including the name of the petitioner in the draw of lots held on 31.3.2004. 10. The plea of the petitioner as regards the cost of the allotted flat now allotted should be at the rates prevalent on 31.7.2004 merits acceptance. A direction is accordingly issued to the DDA to issue demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of the flat allotted to the petitioner in Dwarka after calculating the amount on the basis of cost prevalent as on 31.7.2004, within a period of four weeks from today. Subject to completion of all formalities, the petitioner will be put in possession of the flat within four weeks thereafter. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.