Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 835 (DEL)

THAKUR DASS v. D. D. A.

2007-04-23

S.MURALIDHAR

body2007
JUDGMENT Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. (Open Court)- The petitioner, applied under the New Pattern Registration Scheme 1979 (NPRS 1979) for an LIG flat on 6.9.1979. In the application form he gave two addresses: one, a residential address at 25/5, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and the second, an occupational address at 27/1, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. A demand-cum-allotment letter was issued with block dates 27.12.1993 to 31.12.1993 at the residential address but it was received back as undelivered. The admitted position is that the letter was thereafter sent to his occupational address. 2. The petitioner, a cycle mechanic, was unable to make payment and requested for extension of time for making the payment by his letter dated 28.3.1994. He had given his occupational address in the said letter. He later sent a letter dated 15.4.1994 requesting for cancellation of the allotment. This was duly received along with the third copy of challan for payment of cancellation charges. The address given here again was 27/1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner states that by this time he had vacated his residential address and was living at the occupational address. Although the petitioner has indicated the occupational address in these letters, the admitted position is that he did not formally intimate the DDA about his change of address. 3. The case of the DDA is that second draw was held in 1995 and a demand cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner at the residential address mentioned in the application i.e. 25/5, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi and the said letter was not received back. Therefore, the DDA had no occasion to suspect that the petitioner had shifted from the said address. Since no payment pursuant to that allotment was made, the allotment stood cancelled. 4. The petitioner did not know about the second allotment. He learnt of it only on 2 1.11.2003 when he followed up on a rt3presentation made by him. It appears that pursuant to his request thereafter, his name was included in the draw held on 24.11.2004. In the said draw, the petitioner was allotted a LIG flat bearing No. 28/ 1-2, Third Floor, Block-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. However, no demand-cum-allotment letter was issued despite the petitioner visiting the office of the respondent on several occasions. Thereafter he filed this petition. 5. In the said draw, the petitioner was allotted a LIG flat bearing No. 28/ 1-2, Third Floor, Block-B, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. However, no demand-cum-allotment letter was issued despite the petitioner visiting the office of the respondent on several occasions. Thereafter he filed this petition. 5. An interim order was passed in this Court on 26.4.2006 directing that the flat in question would not be allotted till the disposal of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the respondent informs that pursuant to the interim order, the said flat remains un allotted till date. 6. As far as the respondent is concerned, the stand taken is that the inclusion of the petitioners name in the draw held on 24.11.2004 was a mistake since this was not on account of DO A s fault in not sending the allotment letter to the correct address after it was informed of the changed address. On the other hand the cancellation took place on account of the petitioners failure to make the payment pursuant to the allotment made in 1995. 7. To this Court it appears that there is much to be said on both sides. While the petitioner certainly did not inform the respondent formally about the changed address, it is clear that in his letters dated 28.3.1994 and 15.4.1994, he had indicated his address such as 27/1, Ashok Nagar, P.O. Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. The DDA also cannot be faulted since the second allotment letter sent to the residential address first indicated was not returned undelivered. However, the DDA did act on the request of the petitioner and included his name in the second draw held on 24.11.2004. 8.1n the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves equitable relief subject to terms. Having included the name of the petitioner in the draw held on 24.11.2004, and having allotted a flat to him, the DDA cannot plead prejudice. Of course, it is made clear that this will not form a precedent for future cases, and the merits of each of such case will have to be individually evaluated. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he is prepared to pay the costs prevalent as on three months after the date of the draw held on 24.11.2004 within four weeks and also any further amount as may be directed. 10. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that he is prepared to pay the costs prevalent as on three months after the date of the draw held on 24.11.2004 within four weeks and also any further amount as may be directed. 10. It is accordingly directed that the petitioner would be allotted the flat in question upon the petitioner paying pay the cost of the flat prevalent as on three months after the date of the draw held on 24.11.2004 within four weeks. In addition the petitioner is directed to pay interest @ 9% per annum on the demanded amount from 24.11.2004 till 26.4.2006, the date on which the interim order was passed by this Court. The DDA will now issue a demand-cum-allotment letter on the basis of the above directions within four weeks from today and the petitioner will make a payment so demanded within four weeks thereafter. Subject to completion of formalities, the DDA will put the petitioner in possession of the flat within a further period of eight weeks. 11. With these directions, this writ petition and the pending application stand disposed of. Writ Petition disposed of.