Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 205 (DEL)

Ameet Khandelwal v. Delhi Development Authority

2011-02-07

S.MURALIDHAR

body2011
ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. The father of the Petitioner applied for an MIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 ('NPRS') giving both his residential and occupational addresses. Admittedly, after his turn matured, in a draw held on 31st May, 2002, a flat was allotted and a demand-cum-allotment letter ('DAL') was sent to the residential address. The DAL was returned to the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') unserved. Thereafter, the DAL should have, according to the practice of the DDA, either been sent to the residential address again or to the occupational address available on the file. Admittedly, the DAL was neither sent again to the residential address nor sent to the occupational address. 2. The original allotee died in the meanwhile. Pursuant to an application made by him, mutation of the registration was granted in favour of the Petitioner, the son of the original applicant. However, despite the representations made thereafter a fresh DAL was not sent and, hence, the present petition. 3. The first submission on behalf of the DDA is that the petition is barred by laches. It is stated that the Petitioner approached this Court only in 2010 whereas the allotment stood cancelled way back in 2002. 4. The narration of the events show that the DDA had given the Petitioner a personal hearing on 4th April, 2005 during which it was communicated to the Petitioner that the allotment had already matured and the DAL had been sent to the residential address in 2002. Admittedly, the Petitioner kept following up the matter thereafter. He was granted mutation of the registration at his request by the DDA on 13th May, 2010. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to hold that the petition is barred by laches. 5. It is then submitted by the DDA that with the original applicant, i.e., the Petitioner's father having already expired, no purpose would have been served if the DAL had been sent to the occupational address. It is, however, pointed out by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, son of the late original applicant, had been carrying on business at the occupational address and would have received the DAL if it was sent at the occupational address. It is, however, pointed out by learned Counsel for the Petitioner, son of the late original applicant, had been carrying on business at the occupational address and would have received the DAL if it was sent at the occupational address. As held by this Court in Sudhesh Kapoor v. DDA, (decision dated 25th May, 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8174 of 2006) and Hirdayapal Singh v. DDA, 2007 (2) AD (Delhi) 705, the DDA was bound to send the DAL at the occupational address. Having granted the mutation in favour of the Petitioner it is no longer open to the DDA to contend that since the original applicant has died, it cannot be held liable for not sending the DAL at the occupational address. The Petitioner is continuing his father's business at the occupational address. He would have received the DAL if it had been sent to the occupational address. 6. In that view of the matter the Petitioner is entitled to succeed. Accordingly, a direction is issued to the DDA to hold a mini-draw within four weeks and allot to the Petitioner an MIG flat in the same or nearby locality. Within four weeks thereafter a fresh DAL will then be issued to the Petitioner, where a demand will be raised as per the old cost, together with interest as per the DDA policy. Upon the Petitioner making payment within the stipulated time and completing all formalities, the Petitioner will be put in possession of the flat in question within a further period of four weeks thereafter. 7. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. The pending application is also disposed of.