Ravindra Krishna v. Delhi Development Authority

1. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondent to allot an LIG flat at the cost when the draw was held.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for an LIG flat under the New Pattern Registration Scheme, 1979 on 25.9.1979 by depositing a sum of Rs.1,500/-. On 31.5.1980, certificate of registration bearing No.27309 was issued to the petitioner from the Housing Branch of the DDA. On 6.9.1989, the petitioner is alleged to have shifted his house and sent a notice on the same day to the respondent/DDA to take note of his changed address. The petitioner sent 2014:DHC:5601 another letter on 3.10.1989 about the confirmation of the earlier letter. The change of address in the records of the respondent was duly confirmed by the DDA on 4.10.1989. It is alleged that the petitioner kept on waiting for allotment of an LIG flat and since he did not hear anything in this regard, he approached the office of the respondent/DDA and he came to know of the allotment of a flat in Kondli Gharoli against his registration number.

3. On 5.8.2010, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Director (Housing) that he did not receive any demand-cum-allotment letter in respect of his registration application No.27309. On 25.10.2010, the petitioner is alleged to have been asked to attend the office of the respondent along with original documents, which he did. On 6.4.2011, the respondent vide their letter of the same date, intimated the petitioner that a flat was allotted to him at Narela, which was cancelled due to nonpayment since the demand letter was received back undelivered. It is further alleged that the officials of the respondent told the petitioner that his application for change of address is being traced and the final outcome will be intimated to him. It is alleged that he never received any demand-cum-allotment letter. The petitioner kept on waiting for hearing from the DDA; however, as nothing was heard, he was constrained to file the present writ petition in the month of August, 2013 claiming the aforesaid relief of allotment of a flat.

4. The respondent has disputed the correctness of the averments made in the petition. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner, no doubt had applied for allotment of an LIG flat and his registration number was 27309 and his priority No. was 30041. On the turn of the priority number of the petitioner, he was allotted an LIG flat bearing No.398, ground floor, Pocket-7, Sector A-6, Group II, Narela, in the draw of lots held on 20.1.1994 on cash down basis. The demand-cum-allotment letter was also sent to the petitioner on his residential address which was mentioned in the application form, i.e., WZ-114, Lajwanti Garden, New Delhi. The said demand letter required the petitioner to deposit the demanded amount. This demand-cum-allotment letter was received back with the remark from the postal authorities that ‘no such person was living at WZ-114, Lajwanti Garden’.

5. It is the case of the respondent that DDA had the address of the petitioner as was mentioned in the form and since there was no application for change of address, as is alleged by the petitioner, on record, therefore, the said stand and the averments of the petitioner regarding change of address are totally incorrect. It is also alleged by the respondent that a second demand letter was addressed to the petitioner on his Government Services Auditor A/c 83000647 C.D.A. (Pension), Allahabad, U.P. but nothing was heard in this regard also. It is the case of the respondent that as the petitioner did not pay the amount in terms of the demand-cum-allotment letter, consequently, a show cause notice dated 4.1.1995 was sent to the petitioner in response to which also no response was received and consequently, the flat was cancelled.

6. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner’s name was included in the draw of lots afresh and he was this time declared to be successful in respect of another flat in Kondli, Gharoli. It is alleged that demand-cum-allotment letter of this flat was also sent to the petitioner, which also did not result in deposit of any amount by the petitioner towards the cost of the flat. It is alleged that despite the amount to be deposited within the period mentioned in the allotment letter, nothing was done by the petitioner till 22.7.1996. Consequently, a show cause notice was issued to him in 1997 and a cancellation letter was sent on 22.2.1997 cancelling the flat itself. It is alleged that the petitioner has woken up in the year 2010 and submitted an application for change of address, a copy of which was stated to have been given to the DDA on 6.9.1989.

7. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has been guilty of inordinate delay and latches and consequently, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The main contention of the petitioner is that he did not received the allotment-cumdemand letter on his changed address, which was communicated to the respondent well before the first draw of allotment, which took place in the year 1990.

9. No doubt, the respondent/DDA is under an obligation to sent the demand-cum-allotment letter on the changed address communicated to the it but, in the instant case, the respondent/DDA is denying the authenticity of the letter dated 6.9.1989 communicating the change of address, a photocopy of which has been filed along with the writ petition. It neither bears any stamp of receipt of the respondent nor does he attach any proof prima facie to show that the letter was every delivered. Moreover, I have seen the original record. There is no such letter ever delivered to the DDA. Even the note on the file is not there. Normally, when any communication is received by the DDA, it would be put by way of a note to the superior officer for bringing it to his notice and soliciting orders. Therefore, this plea of the demand-cum-allotment letter not being received by him on the changed address is only a false plea as no such letter seems to have been ever given by the petitioner. The petitioner has also not placed any prima facie proof of this letter ever having been given by way of receipt of letter in the receipt section of the DDA or postal receipt. What has been placed on record is only a typed copy of the letter of changed address which cannot be accepted to be any credible evidence.

10. Now, he question whether the petitioner was entitled to a flat on the basis of assuming the address furnished by the petitioner at the time of registration. The respondent/DDA had conducted the draw on 20.1.1994 and sent the demand letter not only on the residential address but also the official address available on the record. Since the payments in terms of the demand letter were not deposited within the stipulated period, the allotment was cancelled and his name was put at the tale end which entitles the registration to be considered for the fresh draw as and when the same was held.

11. The second draw was held on 29.3.1996 and the name of the petitioner was included and demand-cum-allotment letter was issued to him. Thus, the petitioner was allotted flat originally in Narela and then Kondli, Gharoli. On both the occasions, the demand-cum-allotment letter is issued to him, to which he does not responded and no amount towards the cost of the flats is ever deposited. In the allotment letter, a graded schedule is indicated by which payment is to be made without interest, with interest and ultimately resulting in cancellation of the flat. The respondent/DDA is not expected to keep the flat allotment as an openended scheme till the time the proposed allottee comes forward and pays the amount. The allottee, as a vigilant reasonable registrant, is required to protect his interest and take steps with due diligence of checking up with the respondent what happened to its registration. The scheme itself has been closed long back. The respondent has advertised sufficiently in the newspaper and, therefore, it is too late in the day for the petitioner to have woken up and claim allotment.

12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I feel that both, on the ground of delay and latches as well as on merits, the writ deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. V.K. SHALI, J. OCTOBER 30, 2014 ‘AA’