Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1052 (DEL)

KAILASH CHANDER v. D. D. A.

2009-10-05

SANJIV KHANNA

body2009
ORDER 1. In 1980, the petitioner Mr. Kailash Chander deposited Rs. 4,500/ - with the DDA for allotment of a flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979. In 2001, the petitioner was allotted flat No. 390, second floor, Sector-17, Pocket-A, Phase-2, Dwarka on hire purchase basis and a demand-cum-allotment letter with dates 26 December, 2001- 31 December,2001 was issued and sent to the petitioner by the registered post at A-8/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. 2. The petitioner states that he had never received the said letter and as per the file of the DDA, the postal envelope was received back undelivered with remarks. "left W / A", which as per the respondent DDA means "left without address". It is, however, the case of the petitioner that he has always been residing with his father at A-8/4, Vas ant Vihar, New Delhi. The petitioner has filed on record, documents in support of the said contention in the form of water bills issued by Delhi Jal Board and property tax returns filed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The said documents are in the name of Mr. R.D. Gupta, father of the petitioner. The petitioner had also fifed the said documents before the respondent DDA along with his representation dated 28n June, 2004. The file nothings recorded in the DDA file reveal that they have accepted that the present case is one wherein there has been lapse on the part of the postal authorities and neither the DDA nor the petitioner can be blamed. However, strangely the request of the petitioner for allotment of a flat has been rejected on the ground that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the wrong address policy. The present case is certainly not covered by the wrong address policy but is a peculiar case in which there is a lapse on the part of the postal authorities, for which the petitioner cannot be blamed. The respondent DDA has accepted and admitted that throughout the relevant period, the petitioner was residing at A-8 / 4, Vas ant Vihar, New Delhi and the postal report they had received is wrong. 3. Wrong address policy covers cases, where a person had changed his address and had informed the DDA about his new address, but demand-cumallotment letter by mistake was issued at the earlier address. 3. Wrong address policy covers cases, where a person had changed his address and had informed the DDA about his new address, but demand-cumallotment letter by mistake was issued at the earlier address. Even if the case of the petitioner does not fall under the wrong address policy, it does not mean that the petitioner should suffer. The DDA cannot act arbitrarily but in a fair and rational manner. In fact as per the policy decision taken by the DDA was back in 1993, it was decided that in cases where demand-cum-allotment letter is received back undelivered, the same should be sent to the occupational address given in the registration application and in alternative if no occupational address is available, the same should be sent to the residential address by normal post. This procedure was not followed in the present case. No letter was written. 4. It is also difficult to believe that the petitioner would not have accepted the demand-cum-allotment letter issued in the year 2001 on a registration made by him way back in 1980. Allotment was made to the petitioner after waiting 20 years. In the present case, the allotment was on hire and purchase basis and not on cash down basis, which goes to the advantage and benefit of the petitioner. There is no reason for the petitioner not to accept the said allotment. 5. The next question relates to the cost. In the present case, the petitioner had made an application/representation for allotment of the flat on 28th June, 2004. In normal course, the DDA should have processed the application within three to four months. It is apparent from the file of the DDA that the application of the petitioner was not processed. On the other hand, the DDA vide their letter dated 31 May, 2005 informed the petitioner that his registration was cancelled and he should ask for refund of the registration amount by submitting the original documents. It may be noted that after 2001, DDA kept quiet and did not write any letter till 31st May, 2005. Even before letter dated 31st May, 2005 was written, the petitioner had written letter dated 26th June, 2004 asking the respondent DDA to make the allotment enclosing therewith papers that he had never shifted from the address given in the registration form. 6. Even before letter dated 31st May, 2005 was written, the petitioner had written letter dated 26th June, 2004 asking the respondent DDA to make the allotment enclosing therewith papers that he had never shifted from the address given in the registration form. 6. In view of the above, it is directed that the respondent DDA will allot an alternative flat to the petitioner on hire and purchase basis and will charge the price of the flat as per the rates prevalent on 31st December, 2001. The petitioners name will be included in the next draw of lots, which will be held within a period of three months from today. The petitioner will be entitled to cost of Rs. 10,000/-, which will be deducted from the principal amount payable by the petitioner as per the demand-cum-allotment letter. Ordered accordingly.