Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 382 (DEL)

GOVIND SINGH BAGGA v. DDA

2010-03-05

G.S.SISTANI

body2010
JUDGMENT G.S. Sistani, J. (Oral)-Rule. With the consent of Counsel for the parties, writ petition is set down for final hearing and disposal. 2. Brief facts of the case, as set out in the petition, are that on 12.6.1980, petitioner registered himself under New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, for allotment of an MIG flat. In view of his transferable job, petitioner gave the address for the purpose of communications of his friend (care of Sh. (Dr.) G. Sachdeva, WZ-93, Ramgarh, New Delhi). Vide communication dated 26.4.1988 petitioner informed the DDA about change of his address [from WZ-93, Ramgarh, New Delhi to 10, Vinay Nagar, Sector 4, Gwalior (M.P.)] for future correspondence. This letter of the petitioner was acknowledged by the DDA vide Diary No. 2159 on 26.4.1988. Petitioner is stated to have visited Delhi to check the status of his allotment and reaffirmed to DDA his Gwalior address vide letter dated 13.1.1991. This letter of the petitioner was acknowledged by the DDA vide diary No. 171 on 14.1.1991. On 31.5.2002, DDA allotted a flat bearing No. 30D, Sector 7 Pocket 2, 3rd Floor, Dwarka, New Delhi, in the draw held on 31.5.2002 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter demand-cum-allotment was sent at the old address i.e. WZ-93, Ramgarh, New Delhi. DDA received back the demand-cum-allotment letter undelivered with the endorsement shifted. The petitioner again visited DDA on 27.10.2005 to check the status of his allotment, when he learnt that an allotment was made in his favour in the year 2002, however, the same was cancelled due to non-delivery of the letter and consequent non-payment. Petitioner is stated to have made a representation to the DDA on 27.10.2005 itself which was acknowledged by the DDA vide diary No.11042. In response to this representation, no communication was received by the petitioner from the DDA, which prompted the petitioner to make another representation to the DDA on 16.12.2005, which was sent to the DDA by Registered AD No. 5264, which representation met the same fate. Petitioner thereafter on 29.7.2006 made yet another representation to the DDA, which was sent by Registered AD No. 1655. On 22.1.2007, petitioner is stated to have visited Delhi again, and met the Director (MIG) in a public hearing (51. No. 250) to know the progress of his case, but to no effect. Petitioner thereafter on 29.7.2006 made yet another representation to the DDA, which was sent by Registered AD No. 1655. On 22.1.2007, petitioner is stated to have visited Delhi again, and met the Director (MIG) in a public hearing (51. No. 250) to know the progress of his case, but to no effect. The petitioner thereafter made another representation to the DDA on 20.11.2008, which was acknowledged by the DDA vide receipt No. 36568 dated 20.11.2008. The petitioner also visited the Deputy Director (MIG) on 2.6.2009 vide DDA visitor pass No. 097371. All the representations and the personal visits did not wake up the officers of the DDA from their deep slumber. The petitioner has thereafter knocked the doors of this Court for justice in the year August, 2009. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA. The stand taken by DDA in the counter affidavit is that demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to the petitioner at the address which was initially given by the petitioner care of Dr. G. Sachdeva, WZ/93, Ramgarh, Delhi, and the said Dr. G. Sachdeva continues to reside at the same address. Counter affidavit is, however, completely silent as to why DDA did not respond to various representations made by the petitioner from the year 2005 to 2009. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by the Wrong Address Policy of the DDA as also various judgments rendered by this Court from time to time. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had duly informed the DDA by letter dated 26.4.1988, the context of which were reiterated by the petitioner vide communication dated 14.1.1001 with regard to change of his address. Counsel also submits that the fact that envelope was returned with the endorsement shifted would show that the petitioner did not receive the demand-cum-allotment letter. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The basic facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had registered himself under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, for allotment of an MIG flat. The initial address for the purpose of correspondence given by the petitioner was care of Sh. (Dr.) G. Sachdeva, WZ-93, Ramgarh, New Delhi. Subsequently by two letters dated 26.4.1988 and 13.1.1991 petitioner informed the DDA with regard to change of his address. Both these letters were duly acknowledged by the DDA. The initial address for the purpose of correspondence given by the petitioner was care of Sh. (Dr.) G. Sachdeva, WZ-93, Ramgarh, New Delhi. Subsequently by two letters dated 26.4.1988 and 13.1.1991 petitioner informed the DDA with regard to change of his address. Both these letters were duly acknowledged by the DDA. The name of the petitioner was included in the draw held on 31.5.2002, however, demand-cum-allotment letter was sent at the old address. It is also not disputed that the demand-cum-allotment letter was returned undelivered with the endorsement shifted. Record also reveals that the petitioner approached the DDA on 27.10.2005 within four years of the demand letter having been issued to the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is, thus, fully covered by the Wrong Address Policy of the DDA. This Court has held in various judgments that the DDA is duty bound to send the demand-cum-allotment letter at the correct address and even where the word care of is missing it was treated as having been sent at the wrong address. Despite the petitioner having informed DDA on two occasions with regard to change of address, DDA issued demand-cum-allotment letter at the old address. Further the DDA once having committed a mistake did not choose to rectify the same at the earliest opportunity available. Various representations made by the petitioner to the DDA were not even replied to by the DDA. The attitude of the DDA to say the least is deplorable. The petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post from the year 2005 to 2009 and thereafter forced to file this writ petition in August, 2009. Even, at that stage, DDA has chosen to contest the matter and filed a counter affidavit. The case of the petitioner is fully covered by the change of address policy of the DDA. As per the policy of the DDA, in case the allottee approaches the DDA within four weeks, no interest is payable. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. DDA shall issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner with regard to Flat No. 300, Sector 7, Pocket 2, Third Floor, Dwarka, if available, and in case this flat is not available, the name of the petitioner will be included in the next draw of lots, which shall be held within a period of not later than two months from today. Taking into consideration that the petitioner had approached the DDA within four years as per the policy of the DDA, the petitioner would be entitled to the cost of the year 2002. Costs quantified at Rs.15,000 / - to be paid by DDA, which amount shall be deducted from the demand-cum-allotment letter to be issued to the petitioner. 6. Petition stands disposed of in view of above. Writ Petition allowed.