Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 540 (DEL)

ASHW ANI KUMAR VIJ v. D. D. A

2010-04-12

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 present petition, are that the petitioner had made an application under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, to the DDA, for allotment of an LIG flat, for which the necessary registration fee in the sum of Rs. 1500/- was deposited by the petitioner on 17.5.1980. By a communication dated 24.8.1984, petitioner requested DDA to convert the existing registration from LIG to MIG category as the income of the petitioner had increased. Petitioner was called upon by the DDA to submit additional documents, which were submitted by the petitioner. By a communication dated 30.9.1985, DDA made a demand in the sum of Rs. 4643/- to enable them to convert the registration from LIG to MIG. The petitioner is stated to have deposited Rs. 4643/- on 16.10.1985 in the Central Bank of India. The respondent, consequent thereto, issued a fresh registration No. 46008 in the change of category from LIG to MIG. The petitioner, thereafter, waited endlessly in the hope of allotment letter which was never received by him. The petitioner also in the meanwhile made numerous visits to the office of the DDA but to no effect. Petitioner thereafter filed the present petition in the year 2008. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the DDA wherein it is stated that petitioner was declared successful in the draw held in the year 2003 and was allotted an MIG flat bearing No.9, Second Floor, Sector 24, Pocket IV, Rohini, Delhi, through a computerize draw held on 31.10.2003 on cash down basis. In the counter affidavit, it is further stated that a demand-cum-allotment letter for the block dates 7.1.2004-15.1.2004 was despatched to the petitioner on 12.1.2004 through speed post at his address i.e. 3/242, Janakpuri, New Delhi. It is also stated that the demand-cum-allotment letter was not received back undelivered by the respondent. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that since the amounts were not paid pursuant to the demand-cum-allotment letter issued, the flat allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand-cum-allotment letter was never received by the petitioner as it was sent by the DDA at the wrong address. 4. Learned Counsel for the respondent contends that since the amounts were not paid pursuant to the demand-cum-allotment letter issued, the flat allotted to the petitioner was cancelled. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the demand-cum-allotment letter was never received by the petitioner as it was sent by the DDA at the wrong address. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the wrong address policy of the DDA dated 25.2.2005. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the original record produced by the DDA as well as the policy of the DDA dated 25.2.2005. Basic facts are not in dispute. The petitioner applied for allotment of LIG Flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979, and also deposited the necessary registration fee in the sum of Rs. 1500/- on 17.5.1980. Vide communication dated 24.8.1984 the petitioner requested DDA to convert the registration from LIG to MIG category. The petitioner deposited the requisite documents on 18.10.1984 as demanded by the DDA vide letter dated 15.10.1984. Petitioner, thereafter, deposited a sum of Rs. 4643/- towards conversion charges, to enable DDA to convert the registration of the flat from LIG to MIG. Petitioner was declared successful in the draw held in the year 2003 and was allotted an MIG flat bearing No.9, Second Floor, Sector 24, Pocket IV, Rohini, Delhi, through a computerize draw held on 31.10.2003 on cash down basis. Demand-cum-allotment letter for the block dates 7.1.2004-15.1.2004 was despatched to the petitioner on 12.1.2004 through speed post at his address i.e. 3/242, Janakpuri, New Delhi. As per the original record, which has been produced in Court, the demand-cum-allotment letter had been sent by the DDA at the wrong address. The demand-cum-allotment letter was not received by the petitioner, thus no payment was made. The petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of default of the DDA. Once the demand-cum-allotment letter was received back undelivered by the DDA, the DDA was duty-bound to check if the letter had been despatched. At the correct address. Besides harassment, the error on the part of DDA has deprived the petitioner of a flat in the year 2003. I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the wrong address policy dated 25.2.2005 formulated by the DDA. 7. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. At the correct address. Besides harassment, the error on the part of DDA has deprived the petitioner of a flat in the year 2003. I am satisfied that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by the wrong address policy dated 25.2.2005 formulated by the DDA. 7. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. The name of the petitioner shall be included in the next draw of lots, which shall be held within a period not later than three months from today. Cost to be determined as per the policy. 8. With these directions, petition stands disposed of. Petition allowed.