Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 606 (DEL)

Ravi Dass v. Delhi Development Authority

2012-02-16

HIMA KOHLI

body2012
JUDGMENT : HIMA KOHLI, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for directions to the respondent/DDA to issue a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter to him in respect of the earlier allotted flat, i.e., Flat No.41-B (First Floor), Phase-I, Dwarka, Delhi, at the old cost and if the same is not available, then to direct the respondent/DDA to allot him an alternative flat in the same area by holding a mini draw of lots at the old cost. 2. In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that in the year 1989, respondent/DDA had floated a housing scheme known as Ambedkar Awas Yojna, 1989, which was specifically meant for applicants under the category of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner stated that being an eligible applicant, he got himself registered under the aforesaid Scheme. At the relevant time, he was working as an Executive Engineer in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and even presently is working as an Engineer-in-Chief in the same department. At the time of registration, the petitioner had furnished two addresses as required to be filled up by applicants in columns 7 & 8 of the application form. In column 7, the postal address furnished by the petitioner for correspondence was, “DDA Flat No.16, Pocket A3, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi”. In column 8, the permanent address furnished by the petitioner was “Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi”. On 23.10.1996, the petitioner had communicated to the respondent/DDA that he had shifted his residence from the previous residential address to “Flat No.A-3/79, Sector 8, Rohini Delhi” (Annexure P-2). However, the petitioner has not placed on record, the proof of dispatch of the aforesaid letter. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that after October, 1996, right upto the year 2009, he did not receive any intimation about any allotment being made to him, by the respondent/DDA. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Deputy Director (MIG) Special Housing Scheme for SC/ST persons seeking information with regard to the status of his allotment. It is stated that besides addressing a letter dated 23.6.2009, the petitioner had also attended a public hearing on 25.6.2009 in the office of the DDA and only then did he come to know that a draw of lots had been held by the respondent/DDA on 16.11.1998 and his name was included in the said draw of lots. It is stated that besides addressing a letter dated 23.6.2009, the petitioner had also attended a public hearing on 25.6.2009 in the office of the DDA and only then did he come to know that a draw of lots had been held by the respondent/DDA on 16.11.1998 and his name was included in the said draw of lots. Thereafter, a demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29th July to 2nd August, 1999 was also dispatched to the petitioner at his old address informing him that he had been allotted a flat bearing No.41-B (First Floor), Phase-I, Dwarka, Delhi. Upon being informed about the aforesaid allotment, on 21.7.2009, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent/DDA stating inter alia that despite having informed the respondent/DDA about the change of his residential address in the year 1996, the demand-cum-allotment letter had been wrongly dispatched by DDA at his old residential address due to which he could not receive the same and, therefore, he be allotted a flat of the same size and in the same locality without having to pay restoration charges. The aforesaid request of the petitioner was turned down by the respondent/DDA, vide letter dated 25.6.2010 (Annexure P-7). Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 3.8.2011. 4. Counsel for the petitioner states that the non-receipt of the demand-cum-allotment letter by the petitioner is on account of the respondent/DDA dispatching the same at the old postal address indicated in the application form for the purposes of correspondences, instead of sending the same at the changed address, which was duly intimated to the respondent/DDA in the year 1996. He further states that besides the above, the petitioner had also furnished his permanent address at the time of his registration and admittedly, the respondent/DDA did not made any effort to re-send the said letter at the permanent address given by the petitioner, thus causing him irreparable loss and injury. 5. Counsel for the respondent/DDA relies on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA to submit that the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29th July to 2nd August, 1999 was dispatched to the petitioner at his postal address mentioned by him in the registration form, but the same was received back as ‘undelivered’. 5. Counsel for the respondent/DDA relies on the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA to submit that the demand-cum-allotment letter bearing block dates 29th July to 2nd August, 1999 was dispatched to the petitioner at his postal address mentioned by him in the registration form, but the same was received back as ‘undelivered’. He further states that a Press Notice had been issued and got published by the respondent/DDA in leading newspapers on 19.10.2002, whereby all the successful allottees of various draws, who had not received their respective demand-cum-allotment letters, were called upon to collect the same from the office of the respondent/DDA within 15 days from the date of publication of the above notice. He contends that despite the aforesaid Press Notice, the petitioner did not contact the respondent/DDA and as a result, the allotment of the flat made in his favour stood cancelled on account of non-response/non-payment. He further states that the petitioner has slept over the present case for almost two decades as he did not bother to inquire about the status of his registration, nor did the respondent/DDA receive the letter dated 23.10.1996, purportedly written by the petitioner informing DDA about the change of his residential address. 6. It is further stated by the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the department had issued a letter dated 20.11.2002, which was dispatched to the petitioner at his postal address for correspondence and the same was also returned back as ‘undelivered’. Though a copy of the aforesaid letter has not been placed on record, counsel for the respondent/DDA states that he has the original records with him and he hands over a photocopy thereof with a copy to the other side. The same is taken on record. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid letter was dispatched by UPC, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the letter sent through UPC is a rather weak evidence and cannot be relied upon. 7. The same is taken on record. As regards the contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid letter was dispatched by UPC, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the letter sent through UPC is a rather weak evidence and cannot be relied upon. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the issue in hand has been previously examined by a coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)No.15002/2006 entitled ‘Hirdayapal Singh vs. DDA’ decided on 6.2.2007, wherein the Court had examined the question as to whether DDA was justified in cancelling the allotment in a case where the demand-cum-allotment letter had been dispatched to the petitioner therein at the postal address for correspondence though not at the permanent address as furnished by him in the registration form. He also relies upon the Office Order dated 25.2.2005 issued by the respondent/DDA that deal with cases pertaining to issuance of demand letter at the wrong address and missing priority cases of DDA flats, and states that the delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner has been taken into consideration while issuing the aforesaid Office Order, which stipulates that if an allottee does not approach the respondent/DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, his case would be considered for allotment of a flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of original allotment, but with simple interest imposed @ 12% with effect from the date of original allotment till the date of issuance of a fresh demand-cum-allotment letter. 8. The Court has considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and examined the documents placed on record as also the file of the department produced by learned counsel for the respondent/DDA. The stand of the petitioner that he had furnished two addresses at the time of his registration, i.e., his postal address for correspondence and a permanent address, is borne out from a perusal of his registration form submitted to the respondent/DDA. The disputed question of fact is the receipt of letter dated 23.10.1996, which the petitioner claims that he had forwarded to the respondent/DDA by UPC informing it that he had changed his postal address for future correspondence. The disputed question of fact is the receipt of letter dated 23.10.1996, which the petitioner claims that he had forwarded to the respondent/DDA by UPC informing it that he had changed his postal address for future correspondence. Even if it is assumed that the letter dated 23.10.1996 was not received by the respondent/DDA in its records, respondent/DDA certainly had the permanent address of the petitioner available with it. 9. The submission of the counsel for the respondent/DDA that the petitioner ought to have followed up the status of his registration by keeping in touch with the respondent/DDA, cannot absolve the respondent/DDA from its duty to have made every effort to ensure that the demand-cum-allotment letter reached the petitioner at the addresses as available in its record. The permanent address of the petitioner admittedly remained the same inasmuch as, at the time when the petitioner had got himself registered with the respondent/DDA under the aforesaid Scheme, he was working as an Executive Engineer in MCD and presently he is working in the same department as Engineer-in-Chief. Therefore, permanent address furnished by the petitioner was his occupational address, which is “Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Model Town, Chandni Chowk, Delhi”. 10. When the demand-cum-allotment letter could have been dispatched by the respondent/DDA at the postal address for correspondence furnished by the petitioner, there is no reason at all as to why it could not have taken steps to dispatch the same letter at his permanent address once it had been returned as ‘undelivered’. It is not disputed that no effort was made by the respondent/DDA to dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner at his aforesaid permanent address. Admittedly, the petitioner is employed with a Government agency and does not have his own residential premises. Therefore, it is natural that the petitioner had to shift from the earlier residential premises that he had been residing in on rent, and relocate himself from Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi to Sector 3 Rohini, Delhi. A periodical shifting of residence by the petitioner being a lessee is, therefore, not surprising and in such circumstances, the respondent/DDA was under an obligation to have made an attempt to serve the petitioner at his permanent address as the letter in question dispatched to him at his postal address for correspondence had been returned ‘undelivered’. A periodical shifting of residence by the petitioner being a lessee is, therefore, not surprising and in such circumstances, the respondent/DDA was under an obligation to have made an attempt to serve the petitioner at his permanent address as the letter in question dispatched to him at his postal address for correspondence had been returned ‘undelivered’. In fact every possible effort ought to have been made by the respondent/DDA to dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to the petitioner at the addresses available in its record. 11. In such circumstances, for the respondent/DDA to justify the cancellation letter by arguing that the petitioner was under an obligation to keep a track of the status of his registration and at the same time claim that it was under no obligation to make an attempt to dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter at the permanent address of the petitioner available in its record, is untenable and unacceptable. On the facts of the case in hand, it was incumbent on the part of the respondent/DDA to have made efforts to dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter at all the addresses of the petitioner as available in its record. Accordingly, the rejection letter dated 25.6.2010 as also the cancellation letter dated 20.11.2002, issued by the respondent/DDA, are set aside and quashed. 12. Having regard to the fact that the respondent/DDA has circulated an Office Order dated 25.2.2005, which deals with a policy pertaining to issuance of a demand letter at wrong address and missing priority cases of DDA, the same would apply to the petitioner herein as well. Para 2 of the aforesaid Office Order is relevant for consideration and the same is reproduced herein below: “2. In cases, where such an intimation has been made but the allottee has not approached the DDA within a period of four years from the date of allotment, the allottee shall be considered for allotment of flat at the old cost prevalent at the time of original allotment + 12% simple interest w.e.f. the date of original allotment till the date of issue of fresh Demand-cum-Allotment Letter.” 13. The aforesaid office order would be applicable if the respondent/DDA does not dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to an allottee at the addresses as are available in its record. The present decision is in line with the decision taken by a coordinate Bench in the case of Hirdayapal Singh (supra). 14. The aforesaid office order would be applicable if the respondent/DDA does not dispatch the demand-cum-allotment letter to an allottee at the addresses as are available in its record. The present decision is in line with the decision taken by a coordinate Bench in the case of Hirdayapal Singh (supra). 14. As a result, the present petition is allowed and disposed of with directions to the respondent/DDA to hold a mini draw of lots for allotment of a flat to the petitioner in the same category, of the same size and in the same locality within a period of six weeks from today. Thereafter, a demand-cum-allotment letter shall be issued to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of holding of the mini draw of lots. In the demand-cum-allotment letter, the cost of the flat shall be determined by the respondent/DDA in terms of its Office Order dated 25.2.2005 and the respondent/DDA shall assess the cost of the flat at the cost prevalent at the time of the original allotment along with simple interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of the original allotment till the date of issuance of a demand-cum-allotment letter. Upon receipt of such a demand-cum-allotment letter, the petitioner shall complete all the requisite formalities as stipulated by the respondent/DDA and thereafter, physical possession of the flat shall be handed over to him within a period of four weeks from the date of completion of such formalities. 15. The petition is disposed of along with the pending application. 16. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.