Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 931 (DEL)

PRAG JI v. D. D. A.

2010-09-08

S.N.AGGARWAL

body2010
JUDGMENT S.N. Aggarwal, J.-The petitioner had registered himself with the DDA for allotment of a Janta flat pursuant to its Housing Policy NPRS-1979. At the time of registration, he was residing at B-101, Madi Pur, JJ Colony but later on shifted from there to House No. 2120, Ganesh Pura-B, Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035. Intimation of change of address was given by the petitioner to the DDA and this fact is admitted by the respondent DDA in its counter affidavit because in Para 'C' at page 54 of the paper book, the stand of the respondent is that the demand-cum-allotment letter was sent by the DDA to the petitioner at his changed address. 2. The petitioner was allotted a Janta flat bearing No. 212, Pocket F-7A, Ground Floor in Rohini in draw held by the DDA on 14.2.1991. The said allotment was cancelled by the DDA because of non-payment of cost of the flat by the petitioner. Since the respondent DDA did not agree to restore the allotment on representation being made by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for directions to the respondent DDA to allot him a Janta flat under its 'Change of Address Policy' at old cost prevalent at the time of allotment. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he never received the demand-cum-allotment letter from the DDA and, therefore, he cannot be blamed for nonpayment of cost of flat which was the reason for cancellation of his allotment. Mr. N. Kinra learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the respondent DDA has failed to supply the copy of demand-cum-allotment letter alleged to had been sent at his changed address though it was specifically asked for under the Right to Information Act vide application being Annexure R-3 to the rejoinder at running page 93 of the paper book. 4. Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA has argued that the right of the petitioner for allotment of Janta flat ceased to exit as he did not respond to the public notice issued by the DDA in 1996 calling upon all the registrants of the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1971 (Janta Category) to approach the DDA for allotment of Janta flats in case they have not got the one earlier. Mr. Mr. Manchanda has submitted that it was specified in the public notice that any request received subsequently for allotment of a flat was not to be entertained. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA, the petitioner has no legal right to ask for allotment of a Janta flat to him even if it is assumed that the 5. The department file pertaining to this case has been produced by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA and the same has been perused by this Court. A perusal of this file reveals that the demand-cum-allotment letter allegedly sent by the DDA to the petitioner at his changed addressed is not there in the file. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA could not point out any office noting in the file to suggest that demand-cum-allotment letter was sent by the DDA to the petitioner at his changed address as alleged in para 'C' of preliminary objection in the counter affidavit at page 54 of the paper book. 6. At this stage, Mr. Rajesh Manchanda learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA requests for an adjournment to produce the demand-cum-allotment letter allegedly sent by the DDA to the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to grant adjournment for the said purpose because it is difficult to believe that the demand-cum-allotment letter if it was sent by the DDA to the petitioner would be segregated from the department file and kept apart. The only inference that can be drawn on perusal of the department file is that the demand-cum-allotment letter informing the petitioner about the allotment of flat in question was not sent by the DDA to him at his changed address. Since the DDA did not send the demand-cum-allotment letter of flat in question to the petitioner, he cannot be blamed for non-payment of cost of the flat. The flat allotted by the DDA to the petitioner in 1991 could not have been cancelled by the DDA for non-payment of cost of flat as he was not informed about the allotment. 7. Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA submits that the flat in question that was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA in 1991 might have been allotted to somebody else after its cancellation. This submission made by him is taken on record. 8. 7. Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent DDA submits that the flat in question that was allotted to the petitioner by the DDA in 1991 might have been allotted to somebody else after its cancellation. This submission made by him is taken on record. 8. For the forgoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed. A writ of mandamus is hereby issued in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent DDA directing it to allot alternative Janta flat preferably in Rohini area at cost prevalent in 1991 as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from today. Mr. N. Kinra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner says that in case of allotment of alternative Janta flat by the DDA to the petitioner at rates prevalent in 1991 is made then the petitioner shall also pay interest @ 10% per annum on the said cost for the period from 1991 till the date of present demand. The respondent DDA is directed to hand over the possession of the flat to be allotted to the petitioner within four weeks of his making payment of cost of flat and on his completing the other formalities. This writ petition stands disposed of in terms referred hereinabove. W.P. allowed.