Sushil Kumar Jain v. Delhi Development Authority

1. By virtue of this Review Petition, the Respondent (DDA) seeks review of the judgment dated 12.11.2013 passed by this Court whereby a writ of mandamus was issued to the DDA to allot a flat of equivalent area (to the area of Petitioner’s allotted flat) to the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain) at the price as prevalent in the year 2012 within a period of twelve weeks. 2015:DHC:5289

2. In fact, the Respondent (DDA) had preferred an LPA against the judgment dated 12.11.2013. One of the submissions raised by the Respondent (DDA) before the Division Bench was that the NRPS Scheme, 1979 (under which the Petitioner had registered for allotment of an MIG flat) been closed in the year 2006, the writ petition filed in the year 2012 was highly belated and this fact had not been noted and decided by this Court. Thereafter, the DDA (Appellant) sought leave to withdraw the appeal with liberty to raise the said issue before this Court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not pressed.

3. The learned counsel for the Respondent-DDA referring to the Division Bench judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Sunil Kumar Jain, LPA 277/2013, decided on 11.03.2014 has urged that NPRS Scheme, 1979 was closed a long time ago. A public advertisement dated 01.05.2004 informing all left over registrants under the NPRS Scheme, 1979 to contact DDA so that their names could be entered in a draw of lots, was issued. Another advertisement on 02.02.2006 to the same effect was also issued. Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain) having failed to approach the Respondent (DDA) in terms of the said advertisements cannot make a grievance regarding cancellation of the allotment after six long years. It is urged by the learned counsel for the DDA that since the writ petition in that case was also filed six years after the closure of the scheme as in the instant case; the writ petition ought not to have been entertained by this Court and instead of allowing the writ petition by issuing a writ of mandamus, the writ petition ought to have been dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-DDA refers to Paras 5 to 9 of the Division Bench judgment in Sunil Kumar Jain (supra), which are extracted hereunder:-

5. The Review Petition is resisted by the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain). It is urged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that in Sunil Kumar Jain’s case, allotment of Flat No.249, Sector A-5, Pocket 6, GRPI, GRD, Narela was made. However, the Respondent in that case did not have sufficient funds to pay the demanded amount. He, therefore, requested to cancel the allotment made and keep alive his entitlement for the flat to be allotted at a future draw.

6. It is contended that no specific averment about the date of the public advertisements was made by the DDA in its counter affidavit. It is further urged that it is a case where this Court found that the allotment letter was not at all issued/posted to the Petitioner. The judgment in Sunil Kumar Jain (supra) will hence, not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned counsel argues that in fact this case will be squarely covered by another Division Bench judgment in Delhi Development Authority v. Prem Bhatnagar, LPA No.1098/2011, decided on 14.02.2012 wherein for want of sending the allotment letter at the occupational address and in spite of the Respondent approaching the Court in the year 2010, the allotment of the flat to the Respondent was upheld but it was ordered that the cost of the flat as on 19.05.2011 shall be payable by the Respondent (Allottee).

7. I have perused the averments made in the counter affidavit filed in response to the original writ petition. I have gone thought the counter affidavit with regard to closure of the NPRS Scheme-1979 which is extracted hereunder:- “…Since the NPRS scheme 1979 has already been closed after having publicized the same through leading Newspapers, the petitioner is not entitled for allotment and is rather entitled for refund of registration money subject to submission of original documents.”

8. I am of the view that considering the fact that since the allotment letter is proved to have not even been posted to the Petitioner (Sushil Kumar Jain), merely on the strength of a public advertisement having been issued after 27 years of registration by the Respondent (DDA), he cannot be denied the allotment of the flat even if he approached the DDA after 5-6 years of the closure of the scheme, particularly when it has not been specifically stated by the Respondent (DDA) as to when the last left over person was allotted the flat under the NPRS Scheme

1979.

9. I do not find any error apparent on the face of record so as to review the judgment dated 12.11.2013.